Shootings in the Perian Gulf;

[Glassfan]

...the Death Machine?

...craven cowardice.

...state-paid goon.

...vile and corrupt

We've been over this on the circumcision thread. I believe in using the words with negative connotations to describe aggression against other people.

What you believe in is called demagoguery, the rhetorical practice of employing emotional appeals and inflammatory language to agitate rather than reason. A rabble-rouser. And Kochman is correct, who can take you seriously? Your arguments are just a series of vicious one-liners.

 

[otago]

Hold off people, these people in the small boat were Indians, did they even speak English or Arabian, I doubt if the ship would have broadcast any messages in Hindi, and of course not all Indians speak Hindi, yes the boats skipper should have had a working knowledge of English but a small boat out of India.

After the Cole incident it is no surprise any warship in the area would be wary, the only mistake I can see made is not opening fire early with warning bursts in front or alongside the boat, 50 cal tracers impacting the water would certainly wake any idiot up to the fact they were heading toward danger.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Third, fuel oil will not explode into a massive fireball. All non-nuclear powered ships have massive quantities of it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Now you’re just nit-picking. Who cares if the Cole almost sunk or not? 17 people were killed and it blew a major hole in the side of the ship. Certainly that is something to try to avoid in the future, no?

It is fundamentally important to this issue. You are exaggerating the effect of a terrorist attack that was only successful because they brought the craft directly alongside the Cole to increase the damage caused. Those onboard the Rappahannock weren't really threatened at all.

Do you not read?

Now you are just being insulting instead of even trying to discuss the issues like a rational adult.

I don’t understand what you are implying here – that the crew should have defended itself to avoid a bomb attack, thereby preventing the ship from catching fire? That is what happened.

We have no idea what actually happened. You just have the word of those who may have even accidentally fired upon and killed a clearly innocent civilian who meant them no harm at all, almost killing 3 others, and which is directly disputed by the survivors. All of them could have died from the attack, and we would have never heard their side of the story at all.

The Rappahannock did not even bother to render aid, much less they apparently didn't even contact someone else who could do so.

Furthermore, I claimed they never approached the Rappahannock at high speed which you disputed. Nowhere in the article that you took so much time and effort bolding did it say anything of the sort. It merely stated the boat had slowed after being directly attacked.

Or are you insinuating that it is sheer speculation that a ship loaded with fuel would burn if it was bombed?

No, I am stating that you clearly exaggerated the likely effect:

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?

I "imagine" that it would have blown a similar sized hole in the side of the ship and that some of the fuel oil onboard would have likely leaked out. Some of it may have caught on fire, but the ship likely has emergency systems to deal with such situations.

Turning a ship that size and speed will take it miles off course. Open your eyes to the bigger world around you. Of course you can turn the wheel immediately. Of course there wasn’t other traffic within a few hundred yards of the ship. That doesn’t matter though when you take the laws of physics and reality into consideration.

What utter nonsense. Have you ever even been on a boat in the ocean before? It is quite common to take such measures to distance yourself from other vessels which you perceive as being a potential threat and which may be on collision courses with you. It is no big deal at all and it frequently occurs, especially in heavy shipping lanes headed towards such a busy port. And again, doing so would have clearly shown if the tiny pleasure boat was trying to be any sort of actual threat.

Read the article again. They describe the non-lethal steps that are taken. There may not have been direct radio conversation, but there are other methods of getting your point across. If those were done (and I believe they were) then there is no reason other than stupidity on behalf of the fishermen for the outcome of the situation.

I don't need to read the article again because I read it and understood it the first time. OTOH you still apparently have no clue what it actually stated and what you falsely claim it did.

...

Those aren't fuel oil fires. And please stick the top one in a spoiler so it doesn't ruin the thread.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The first is Hiryu, whose fuel oil was ignited by fires stated by aerial bombs exploding in the hangar bay.

The second is Forrestal, showing a jet fuel fire, also ignited in the hangar bay.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is no fuel oil in the hangars of aircraft carriers. But back then there was plenty of aviation gasoline which is extremely flammable.

And jet fuel is also not fuel oil. It burns much more readily than fuel oil does, but not nearly as much as aviation gasoline does.

Fuel oil on board ships is typically kept in the bilge near the engine rooms.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There is no fuel oil in the hangars of aircraft carriers. But back then there was plenty of aviation fuel which is extremely flammable.

And jet fuel is also not fuel oil.

Hiryu's fuel oil was ignited by the aviation fuel fire, plus subsequent explosions caused by that initial fire.

 

[MobBoss]

Third, fuel oil will not explode into a massive fireball. All non-nuclear powered ships have massive quantities of it.

Uh. Yes....it can if the right conditions occur.


Link to video.

Fifth, why would all the surviving amateur fishermen lie about what occurred?

Dont fishermen always exaggerate the size of their catch? Well, there ya go.

Even so, it was still nowhere near sinking.

I thought you were a software guy, not a naval engineer. These images http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=EUIHUIv0CsPZqgG-nbG2CA show how bad the blast was and as you can see it was right at the waterline.

The truth of the matter is the Cole was so badly damaged she couldnt travel safely under her own power without risk of sinking and causing further damage and had to be loaded onto a 'heavy lift ship' in order to transport it to drydock.



Stick to software Form. This military stuff makes you look bad.

 

[kochman]

It is fundamentally important to this issue. You are exaggerating the effect of a terrorist attack that was only successful because they brought the craft directly alongside the Cole to increase the damage caused. Those onboard the Rappahannock weren't really threatened at all.

Perceived threat is what matters in the moment. I imagine you'd have no idea though.

We have no idea what actually happened.

Wait, you just told us the sailors of the Rappahanock weren't really threatened...

You just have the word of those who may have even accidentally fired upon and killed a clearly innocent civilian who meant them no harm at all, almost killing 3 others, and which is directly disputed by the survivors. All of them could have died from the attack, and we would have never heard their side of the story at all.

And you've got the word of morons (probably not the best educated ones at that) stupid enough to sail at an obvious military vessel in harrowing waters...

The Rappahannock did not even bother to render aid, much less they apparently didn't even contact someone else who could do so.

Well, they should have. Are we sure they didn't?

I "imagine" that it would have blown a similar sized hole in the side of the ship and that some of the fuel oil onboard would have likely leaked out. Some of it may have caught on fire, but the ship likely has emergency systems to deal with such situations.

Oh, so, they should just let bombs go off... there are emergency systems to deal with such situations.
You're damn right there are! They are called sailors in the USN, and they are armed to defend.

There is no fuel oil in the hangars of aircraft carriers. But back then there was plenty of aviation gasoline which is extremely flammable.

And jet fuel is also not fuel oil. It burns much more readily than fuel oil does, but not nearly as much as aviation gasoline does.

Fuel oil on board ships is typically kept in the bilge near the engine rooms.

I love it. Several people post how you are wrong, and you double down on it... amazing!

Entertaining

 

[BSmith1068]

Now you are just being insulting instead of even trying to discuss the issues like a rational adult.

If there are any posters here that are rational adults that try to discuss the issues, I am one of them.

Furthermore, I claimed they never approached the Rappahannock at high speed which you disputed. Nowhere in the article that you took so much time and effort bolding did it say anything of the sort. It merely stated the boat had slowed after being directly attacked.

One can deduce with relative certainty what likely happened from multiple disparate facts. You don’t always need something spelled out in detail.

Item 1: Here is a photo of the fishing boat:


Notice the rather large black device at the back? Those are outboard motors. Looks like he has at least two, with one up and out of the water. They are rather large outboard motors. Size generally indicates horsepower and this baby seems to have a lot of it. I would say it could easily do more than 20 knots.

Item 2: The case presented in the article I posted (and the excerpt I re-posted) indicates that the boat was closing on the Rappahannock. While it doesn’t give a speed, it does seem to indicate that things are happing rather quickly, given the rapidly shortening distances with only a minute between them.

Item 3: The statement by the surviving fisherman: "We were speeding up to try and go around them and then suddenly we got fired at,"

All three of these items lead me to believe that the fishing boat was indeed moving at a high rate of speed. The fisherman even said so.

Regarding the fuel situation, this is from the Rappahannock's wiki page:

Capacity: 159,000 barrels (25,300 m3) of fuel oil and jet fuel. 7,400 sq ft (690 m2) dry cargo space; eight 20-foot (6.1 m) refrigerated containers with room for 128 pallets

_______________________________

But that is all fine and well. I would like for you to answer – in detail – the following questions. Please give them the attention of a rational adult interested in discussing the issues:

1. At what point is lethal force a legitimate response to an oncoming boat that is not responding to your warnings? How far and how fast should the boat be coming to justify it?
2. How could the crew on the Rappahannock have handled this situation differently?
3. At what point does the responsibility for the actions of the fishermen rest on the fishermen themselves?
4. What would you have done if you were the one manning the .50 cal. with an unknown small boat fast approaching you directly, not responding to warnings? Assume you had 10-15 seconds before the boat could reach you. What would you do?

 

[Patroklos]

There is no fuel oil in the hangars of aircraft carriers. But back then there was plenty of aviation gasoline which is extremely flammable.

And jet fuel is also not fuel oil. It burns much more readily than fuel oil does, but not nearly as much as aviation gasoline does.

Fuel oil on board ships is typically kept in the bilge near the engine rooms.

As was just shown to you via wiki, all USN oilers carry jet fuel because they service USN ships that have air assets.

Every USN warship that is aviation capable also carries an not insignificant amount of jet fuel.

Which is all irrelevant, because which DFM might not be as explosive as some other fuels, that does not mean it is not capable of being explosive. You know, if say, and I am spit balling here, being exposed to high explosives and a subsequent fire.

What is your relevant experience regarding the maritime domain Forma? You have tried to assume the expert mantle several times now, why do you feel you are so much better informed on these matters?

 

[overkill9]

Loving someone telling me 'you don't know how ports work'. Are you meaning to tell me this guy had no choice but to head in that direction while vast expanse of the ocean occupied by such a HUGE ship (lol) presents something of an insurmountable block? Or are you one of those psuedo-professionals who believe a little taste of routine patterns constitute a complete loss of common sense in variable situations and anyone who points out the obvious is an 'amateur'?

You are required to be a COMPETENT professional. Blindly falling into the trap of having a taste of what average joe with no experience in terms of situations and learning little bit of the situational awareness in that regard does not give you the right to proactively disregard thinking outside the box for the real reason for being a professional: to be a competent and successful one, not meeting unexpected situation and still approaching it blindly with 'professionalism' instead of adopting to the situation. You sound like those incompetent bureaucrats who constantly spout "you don't know what it's like" while never sticking their necks out for anything.

Also, your posts stinks of one liners intended to blindly insult US forces for being what they are meant to be: trained security personnel. Your sole reasoning here is they are allowed the amount of force you are not and you find it unfair, distasteful, and can't stand it. That's just too bad. Your points really are nothing but smears written on the only motivation to denigrate anyone doing what you cannot do and are thus 'hired goons' and 'cowardice'. What a laugh. Talk some more out of your hole, demonstrate your spite. Nothing else backs up your so-called opinions. US demonstrates much better degree of responsibility in terms of power and influence it wields, and all its detractors are capable of is nitpicking its faults and over emphasizing them, or twisting it around to sound as they want it to sound, while their same words could be used to talk to their own family given the same motivation to insult them.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I know nothing about international maritime right-of-way laws and customs, but I feel like the big ship with tons on huge guns would naturally get the right-of-way in almost any situation. Unless the other boat was bigger with more huge guns. Anyone who has seen a highway accident or demolition derby knows that the bigger one eats the little one. Surely the fishermen knew this when they approached a miliatary vessel in an area with a history of violence.

 

[overkill9]

I know nothing about international maritime right-of-way laws and customs, but I feel like the big ship with tons on huge guns would naturally get the right-of-way in almost any situation. Unless the other boat was bigger with more huge guns. Anyone who has seen a highway accident or demolition derby knows that the bigger one eats the little one. Surely the fishermen knew this when they approached a miliatary vessel in an area with a history of violence.

It was an oiler. A speedboat in service of somalian pirates have more firepower.

 

[History_Buff]

Hold off people, these people in the small boat were Indians, did they even speak English or Arabian, I doubt if the ship would have broadcast any messages in Hindi, and of course not all Indians speak Hindi, yes the boats skipper should have had a working knowledge of English but a small boat out of India.

From what I'm told (by the Indian girl at work), most Indians can at least passably understand English, if not speak a little bit of it.

It stands to reason that anyone operating a boat this far out would speak either the local language or a lingua franca, most likely English.

 

[r16]

wait, what?

Oh, you've never seen r16 before?

it is better than the real life explanation that delaying tactics by the US Administration might offer less than preferable options to Gulf States . Iraq turned out to be a Shia state of sorts and American Right , if it wins in November , might turn Syria into such a mess that Syrians might actually agree to be anything but a transient front post for the oil empire to be . As such a certain muscle flexing would be in order .

against a full-up warship a demonstration would end up in a salvo of 5 inch gunfire , this Rappo whatever could probably only offer .50 caliber . And the Indian crew made a choice only it became an issue between paycheck and life . This is the secret of the invincible Capitalism ; people are forced to do what the boss sez ...

 

[Patroklos]

I know nothing about international maritime right-of-way laws and customs, but I feel like the big ship with tons on huge guns would naturally get the right-of-way in almost any situation. Unless the other boat was bigger with more huge guns. Anyone who has seen a highway accident or demolition derby knows that the bigger one eats the little one. Surely the fishermen knew this when they approached a miliatary vessel in an area with a history of violence.

This isn't ture. In normal situations where a military vessel and a civilian vessel meet in the night, assuming neither are restricted in their ability to maneuver (which is all defined in the COLREGS) one ship has the right of way and another ship is the giveway, military vessels follow these rules because it keeps everybody safe.

So unless the nature of our work makes us legally a stand on vessel, or we are doing something like blockading or boarding or escorting that would require us to operate differently we call up ships on BtB and negotiate safe passage just like any other.

This Indian fisherman was far outside the rules. There is no reason to be with in 1000 yards of each other let alone 100, doing so in the first place (especially without contacting the other ship to clarify intentions, maneuvering or otherwise) was simply putting both ships in danger of collision for no reason. Their proximity went far beyond mere maneuvering safety and into simple self defense. This would be the case regardless of whether the ship was military or civilian. There is simply no valid reason for the Indian fisherman to be that close, try doing that to a civilian freighter in the Gulf of Aden and see what happens...

 

[MobBoss]

It seems someone has retreated from the thread...

 

[kochman]

It seems someone has retreated from the thread...

You must mean Formy... the resident military/civil rights expert. He's taught us all we can learn in one life time already.

 

[DroopyTofu]

This isn't ture. In normal situations where a military vessel and a civilian vessel meet in the night, assuming neither are restricted in their ability to maneuver (which is all defined in the COLREGS) one ship has the right of way and another ship is the giveway, military vessels follow these rules because it keeps everybody safe.

So unless the nature of our work makes us legally a stand on vessel, or we are doing something like blockading or boarding or escorting that would require us to operate differently we call up ships on BtB and negotiate safe passage just like any other.

Hmm, I wouldn't have thought of it that way. I doubt I'll ever be in the situation, but still, good to know.

This Indian fisherman was far outside the rules. There is no reason to be with in 1000 yards of each other let alone 100, doing so in the first place (especially without contacting the other ship to clarify intentions, maneuvering or otherwise) was simply putting both ships in danger of collision for no reason. Their proximity went far beyond mere maneuvering safety and into simple self defense. This would be the case regardless of whether the ship was military or civilian. There is simply no valid reason for the Indian fisherman to be that close, try doing that to a civilian freighter in the Gulf of Aden and see what happens...

Yeah, it seems like it's entirely the fault of the fishing boat at this point. Too bad the miliatary is having to take heat for it.