Shootings in the Perian Gulf;

[kochman]

They could have said that the US boat acted in a way that could be perceived as warning the fishermen instead of doing the age old American tradition of shooting first.

What the hell would you know about this?

 

[overkill9]

What the hell would you know about this?

They are simply talking out of their holes trying to insult a nation based on overhyped and infantile one-upmanship common of those feeling they need any thing in their mouth to criticize others, even if it is complete nonsense. Maybe pouring the motherload of smear down their far-inferior moral aptitudes in regards to their attitudes would give them a taste of their own medicine in playing that particular game.

 

[NickyJ]

Why?
Fishing boats are everywere.

Yeah, but why would Indians sail through the Straight of Hormuz? I would think they would only go as far as the Gulf of Oman.

 

[History_Buff]

That is intriguing.

Why? India isn't exactly far from the Gulf.

 

[kochman]

And the gulf is rich in sea life...
Our fishing boats go from Seattle up to the Islands in Alaska all the time...
You go where the fish are...

 

[NickyJ]

Still, I wouldn't think that they would want to get anywhere near Iran.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Many people aren't quite so paranoid about a country that has likely never killed one of their fishermen.

 

[wilycoyote]

Many people aren't quite so paranoid about a country that has likely never killed one of their fishermen.

You know, I have lived in the desert for 25 years and have never been stung by a scorpion (or even see one). I am apparently an aberration in the regard. I don't know any other long-time residents that have never seen one. However, if I were to ever see one, I would never think to not fear being stung by one, just because it has yet to happen.

A scorpion is a scorpion and a fundamentalist theocracy is a fundamentalist theocracy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

While hatred and fearmongering continue to be just that.

Eventually, peaceful fishermen everywhere will learn to never go anywhere near a ship painted battleship grey, even if they are both simply navigating a very tight body of water. That this is the real threat to their own lives instead of absurd saber rattling.

According to the last article posted, this may have even been an accident.

"We certainly regret the loss of life in this incident…. There were, in fact, warning measures that were taken based on what we know now. ," said Pentagon spokesman George Little.

 

[History_Buff]

Still, I wouldn't think that they would want to get anywhere near Iran.

Why not?

 

[BSmith1068]

According to the last article posted, this may have even been an accident.

I think it most certainly was accidental, in that the fishing boat didn’t intend to threaten the navy ship. I doubt they intended to be perceived as a threat.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is not what I meant. if you believe the apparently amateur fishermen who seemed to have been simply out for a pleasurable day on the water from the UAE, they never received any warning shots so this may have just been a matter of incompetence on the part of the gun crew who were trying to warn them.

Here are some more details that directly contradict much of what the Western press has written about this topic:

Global Research: Trigger Happy US Navy brings Wild West to the Persian Gulf

The US navy’s fatal shooting of a small fishing boat in the Persian Gulf this week killing one of its crew not only raises questions about criminal disregard for civilian life and international law, it also points up the Pentagon’s reckless militarization of the strategic waterway.

Given that Washington has doubled its warship presence in one of the world’s busiest commercial sea routes over the past few months, and given the Western escalation of war tensions with sanctions and threats of military attack on Iran, it is inevitable that such policies now result in death. It may be “only one death”. But it reveals a lot about the perpetrators.

Will the US and its propaganda press put up their hands? Yes, they have, but the fingers of blame are, perversely, pointing at the victims.

In the latest incident, American military officials were quick to claim that navy personnel onboard the 677-foot supply ship, USNS Rappahannock, were acting in self-defence when they opened fire with a heavy machine gun on a 30-foot civilian boat killing one man and seriously wounding four others, all of them Indian nationals. Self-defence? Against a vessel 20 times smaller than the warship?

The civilian nature of the smaller vessel, which turned out to be a fishing boat, was never in dispute, even according to the Pentagon spokesmen. What alarmed the US navy, it is claimed, is that the motorized vessel was apparently sailing towards them and got to within 90 yards (100 metres) of the Rappahannock.

Somewhat ludicrously, the American news media amplified the US navy’s supposed defence by trying to blame the deadly incident on Iran. The New York Times, among others, pointed out that Iran has been stoking tensions in the Gulf with threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Note how Iran’s legitimate defensive response to war threats and embargos is turned on its head to be presented as a provocation. Also the Western media noted that the Iranian navy specializes in the use of small speed boats to mount attacks.

The Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations twisted the absurd logic even further: “While much of the world's attention focuses on Iran's nuclear program, Tehran has made considerable progress on another security front in recent years – steadily increasing the reach and lethality of its naval forces.” So Iran can’t even have a navy now without that being seen as a threat to world peace?

US officials are claiming that the fishing vessel ignored repeated warning signals and shots. Lieutenant Greg Raelson, a spokesman for the US navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, added: “US ships have an inherent right to self-defence against potential threats... The safety of our vessels and our personnel is of the utmost priority.”

But these appeals indicate either an appalling ignorance of Persian Gulf geography or a strained attempt to cover up for wanton lethal force. Either way, Washington’s militarization of the Gulf is directly responsible for the homocidal shooting of a fishing crew.

First, let’s look at the notion of US navy apprehensions that the vessel presented an Iranian threat. The incident occurred some 16 kilometres off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, 35km southwest from the city of Dubai. The location of the shooting is approximately 150 km from the southern-most Iranian coast, and some 100 km from Iranian territorial waters.

The Strait of Hormuz, where tensions are running high, is up to 200km northeast from where the fishing boat was shot at.

In other words, the US warship was nowhere near – not even close – to where an Iranian threat could possibly have been perceived.

What the US navy and media appear to be contriving is that the shooting occurred in a scenario similar, if not identical, to the Strait of Hormuz where shipping is fraught with bellicose tensions between Tehran and Washington and where mistakes, however unfortunate, could happen.

But the fact is that the incident occurred at least 100km from Iranian waters. Sandwiched between is another 50km stretch of international waters. US officials and media are postulating, either ignorantly or deceitfully, that an Iranian navy assault vessel on the fuel capacity of a speed-boat engine could have breached first its own 50km territorial limit, then 50km of international waters and finally the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates. And that’s even before the return journey back to Iran.

Furthermore, and more damning, is that surviving crew from the fishing boat say that “no warning shots or signals” were given by the USNS Rappahannock.

“We had no warning at all from the ship. We were speeding up to try and go around them and then suddenly we got fired at,” 28-year-old Muthu Muniraj told Reuters from a hospital in Dubai. “We know warning signs and sounds and there were none; it was very sudden. My friend was killed, he's gone. I don't understand what happened,” said Muniraj, whose legs were punctured by the rounds of the US ship’s .50-caliber gun.

His colleague, 35-year-old Muthu Kannan, who received a gunshot wound to the abdomen, said: “We were fishing and then on the way back they started shooting at us, so many shots, like a storm.”

Also, the survivors say, the American warship turned away immediately after firing, leaving the machine-gun raked fishing boat and those fatally wounded unaided. The vessel had to limp its own way back to port near Dubai where the injured were hastily treated. In this account, the US navy fired gratuitously on a civilian vessel.

The .50 calibre machine gun used is capable of firing 60 rounds per minute that can pierce amoured steel plating up to 100 metres away – the distance that the civilian vessel is said to have gained on the American warship. The machine gun has such firepower that it can be used as an anti-aircraft weapon with a lethal range of up to 2km. Is this credibly a reasonable use of force on a tiny vessel that comes within 100m of a warship?

US navy spokesmen categorically described the approaching vessel as a “civilian, white-coloured pleasure boat”. In the highly unlikely scenario where the US personnel suspected that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard speed boat would have ventured more than 100km into the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates it would have been obvious to the American crew that at the stated distance the vessel was unarmed, and therefore not a threat.

Why would the fishing boat have appeared to be approaching the US warship? The location was at the mouth of Jebel Ali Port, the seventh busiest port in the world behind Rotterdam. Reports say that the fishing skiff was turning towards Jebel Ali. In this dense sea lane, any number of vessels could be construed as approaching the American warship if it positions itself there.

Again, the evidence is looking like a trigger happy US navy crew opened fire on civilians with cavalier disregard. Such criminal conduct should not come as a surprise considering the countless incidents of “Wild West” gratuitous shootings of civilians by American military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What makes the latest Wild West behaviour in the Persian Gulf particularly disturbing is that the waterway has become one of the most militarised areas of the world alongside dense commercial and civilian shipping. Washington has plans to bring a third aircraft carrier, the USS John C Stennis, into the Gulf to join the USS Enterprise and Abraham Lincoln. A fourth aircraft carrier, the USS Eisenhower, is also en route, officially to relieve the Enterprise, however, an overlap period could result in four such vessels out of the US navy’s global total of 11 being stationed in the Gulf.

This naval firepower is in addition to American minesweepers and destroyers, and supply ships such as the USNS Rappahannock, that have been brought into augment the US 5th Fleet stationed at Bahrain.

Just like the recent fatal shooting up of a fishing boat, but on a larger scale, the US is engaging in gratuitous militarization of an international shipping route which sees some 20 per cent of the world’s crude oil pass every day. And this reckless militarization is on the back of unfounded allegations against Iran’s legally entitled development of civilian nuclear energy.

The death of one poor Indian fisherman at the hands of the US superpower may seem an insignificant occurrence. But in that one death lies a grim warning: the world is being turned into the Wild West where US self-styled marshals on land and on sea impose their will on every one else down the barrel of a gun. And when they are caught out, they just lie through their teeth and try to lay the blame on the victims of their rough justice.

 

[Abegweit]

While GlobalResearch is a rather unreliable source, they are still a lot better than the Pentagon and this does sound plausible. Why would a fishing boat be stupid enough to ignore warnings from a warship anyway?

 

[overkill9]

You are right kochman...no need to PM me, just let him talk

So, formaldehyde, you solution is to allow any fisherman to navigate as he pleases without any regard for military vessel's situations or situations of others? Those are tense waters with political implications brought by Iran's threat to close the strait at the expense of all other oil importing nations on earth who uses that lane, importing oil from other places than iran. Fisherman 's livelihood takes place above all others? They must also respect the laws of contacts on seas and recklessly approaching a military vessel of any nation and not backing out after being warned is called breaking that basic rule called common sense. Military ships are not tourist attractions. They has plenty of other places to fish, but chose the most contentious sea in the area.

Since when have you become the pillar of fisherman's rights everywhere? Funny how some people all of a sudden become pillars of morality if it means taking cheap shots at a particular nation.

Edit:
What a moronic article you chose to cite as an 'evidence' of US fault in this case. I especially like how they conveniently did not mention how a fishing boat approaching another nation's military vessel within 100 yards is anything but ordinary or non-provocative. Any nation's navy would at least be wary if such uninvited contacts decided to close in on them and ignore a clear warning. Or do these idiots in 'Global' research think active military vessels are show pieces for curious tourists? They ignore the faults of violation by the fishing crew in the most ridiculous sense, while mouthing off about the perceived US 'imperialism', when the nation instigating the tension is the one who would impose their 'revolution' on other nations, making direct threats to the very existence of a group of people (when was the last time Israel proclaimed they would 'kill all iranians off the face of the earth'?), and now interfering with oil commerce in an ocean for other numerous countries by saying they would 'block' a piece of ocean that is not even all theirs?

Common sense would tell you what this fishing boat did was definitely incompetent, unaware, and defies correct reasoning when it deliberately approached a ship in such a manner. If they can really provide any convincing evidence, that would be contentious. They have not provided any records. Instead, this excuse for a writer tries to portray the fisherman's word to be taken at a face value while vilifying the pentagon because it is a US institution.

That article has such biased slant to itself it might as well be called propaganda research. There were always global powers with reaches extending to oceans and lands, the difference is whether they exercise it relatively better than others. US action is to counter a particular nation that is clearly not interested in anything other than exerting its influence to encourage 'islamic revolution' that makes enemies out of anything that does not follow their way of thinking. The paper focuses and tries to portray a force of US navy in that region as an offensive weapon, while poor poor innocent iran tries to play the victim game. All the while chanting destruction of a nation who does not even share borders with iran itself, and of course never attempted to say tehran is a 'holy land' for a particular religion because they happened to feel like so for a particular faith.

Also, I find it laughable this idiot who wrote this article puts so much faith in the words of these fisherman as if it is the word of god. Were there any records of evidence from these people that show they were not given any warnings? Or only words of poor poor victims who even by instinctive common sense should know when any nation's military vessel is in the immediate vicinity they should at least keep some reasonable distance away from it, not getting within 90m of the said ship without signaling its intentions? Military is not your average civillian fishing boat. And US had no way of knowing if it was, or another Cole type attack, so they set up a series of procedures that would have been obvious if the fisherman were at least paying attention instead of joyriding around thinking every ship needs to understand who they are and what they do without even letting them know in the first place.

I don't know what kind of slanted and frustrated moron would spew out the perceived insults to US in such manner on the supposed 'research' article without obviously ignoring any counter claims about iran's behavior, the fact that iran surely has no problems claiming to close the strait that is not even fully theirs, and threatening ships with cargoes that does not even belong to those EVIL US or israel. This brat needs to shut its biased mouth and know it is international shipping Iran is threatening, claiming to close the strait that is not even theirs, and generally claiming to commit a large scale destruction and annihilation of a country that makes no such claims to their land , based purely on their own ignorant perceptions.

In the end, the argument boils down to simply that they do not like US power projected to protect its allies. They would be happy to know our power to protect our allies does not consider the opinions of those who preach annihilation of another nation based on their selfish reasons of biased faith. This is like saying because I don't have the power to act to protect my people you having that power constitutes an unfair advantage even if the cause is to protect international shipping.

"US navy spokesmen categorically described the approaching vessel as a “civilian, white-coloured pleasure boat”. In the highly unlikely scenario where the US personnel suspected that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard speed boat would have ventured more than 100km into the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates it would have been obvious to the American crew that at the stated distance the vessel was unarmed, and therefore not a threat." This sorry excuse for researcher think's it's 'obvious' it would seem unarmed and not a threat? So are suicide bombers who hide their bombs. What a naive moron. He also has the tendancy to spout words thinking Iranian guard respects territorial waters when it is claiming to close a strait that is not even all theirs. Can this get any more ridiculous?

 

[Formaldehyde]

While GlobalResearch is a rather unreliable source, they are still a lot better than the Pentagon and this does sound plausible. Why would a fishing boat be stupid enough to ignore warnings from a warship anyway?

They claim to not have received any warning. Given where it occurred and that they were apparently on converging courses headed to the same destination, the seventh busiest port in the world, I can certainly understand why a 30 ft pleasure boat with some amateur fishermen aboard never thought they were being perceived as a danger to anybody.

I think it is also quite telling that the Rappahannock apparently never tried to change course or even speed up until they decided to not even render aid to their victims. This smacks of another Iranian civilian passenger plane shoot-down. At least this incident only resulted in one death instead of 290.

 

[BSmith1068]

I’m usually on the same side as you in arguments here on the forums, but I just can’t be in this case.

Aside from the extreme bias that this article portrays, it doesn’t really provide any sort of definable defense of the fishermen. The biggest thing it seems to say is that they were far away from Iran, so how could this boat be a threat?

I know I don’t need to, but I feel compelled to mention the USS Cole (again). The Cole was almost sunk by a small pleasure boat (20 times smaller than it!?!) much farther from Iran than where this incident occurred. In a friendly port even.

The USNS Rappahannock is a fuel tender. Can you imagine what would have happened if a small boat the size of what hit the Cole exploded on the side of this ship? If it had been a real threat, then we wouldn’t be talking about one poor fisherman’s death here. We’d likely be talking about the loss of the entire crew of this ship and who knows what kind of escalation in the tensions already present in these waters.

It’s unfortunate that this incident happened, but let’s remember that it wouldn’t have happened at all if the fishing boat had maintained its distance from the ship, or as the reports indicate, hadn’t turned and directly headed for the ship.

Until there is credible evidence that there was no warning, then I will have to side with the Navy here. Even then, this was completely avoidable by the fishermen.

It’s easy to armchair quarterback this and use the (more) perfect information that we now have about this fishing boat to pontificate on how the ship’s crew should have acted. In reality this was a quick engagement (3 min or so) with a boat that was making an obvious threatening move towards the ship. They made the right call.

 

[kochman]

I'd certainly maintain a healthy distance from a giant military ship in an area that is a potential flashpoint of violence/war... call me cautious.

 

[Abegweit]

I think it is also quite telling that the Rappahannock apparently never tried to change course or even speed up until they decided to not even render aid to their victims.

Like I said, I don't trust globalresearch and would like to have this part confirmed by someone else. If true, it is indeed very telling.

This smacks of another Iranian civilian passenger plane shoot-down. At least this incident only resulted in one death instead of 290.

When you send a team halfway around the world to commit murder, it is inevitable that some of the victims will be unintended.

 

[BSmith1068]

They claim to not have received any. Given where it occurred and the apparently fact that they were on diverging courses headed to the same destination, the seventh busiest port in the world, I can certainly understand why a 30 ft pleasure boat with some amateur fishermen aboard never thought they were being perceived as a danger to anybody.

If they never realized they were being warned (for whatever reason), then it is obvious that they would state they weren’t warned.

I think it is also quite telling that the Rappahannock apparently never tried to change course or even speed up until they decided to not even render aid to their victims. This smacks of another Iranian civilian passenger plane shoot-down. At least this incident only resulted in one death instead of 290.

You were just, for all intents and purposes, engaged by a small boat that made a threatening move towards you. You don’t know who, or what is on that boat. You are a civilian crew on a large fuel tender with a small Navy security detail on board whose primary mission is to protect the ship. You engaged the threatening boat with lethal force, and for all you know just stopped a bombing. What do you do?

Hell yeah I am getting the heck out of dodge! Use the radio, call in real Navy assets to assist (not sure if that is what happened or not) but I am sure as hell getting as far away from this threat as possible.

I doubt they even have a real ability to launch a boarding party.

If that was a bomb laden boat, the last thing you want to do is bring your nice big fuel tank up next to it. You just shot at it to prevent that from happening.

 

[BSmith1068]

Please stop letting 20/20 hindsight hinder your perspective on why people did what they did.