Shootings in the Perian Gulf;

[Patroklos]

I don't think the Indian interviews necessarily lied, who knows were on that boat he was and what direction he was facing when this all went down.

Ether the master wasn't paying attention, or he was and decided to risk it for the same reason idiots weave through traffic.

 

[Abegweit]

He's not a liar, he just believes that these fisherman are innocent angelic victims who can tell no lies and their word is worth more than any physical evidence or the lack there of.

Innocent victims is a pretty good description of them. And, yes, I trust their word far more than I do that of the Pentagon. For one thing, their story makes more sense.

The idea that a tiny fishing boat would ignore warnings from a Death Machine is laughable on the face of it. No one is that foolish. Clearly there were no warning shots. The only real question is whether there were any warnings of any kind.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Synobun]

The US Navy is probably one of the more trustworthy branches of the American military. I think I will trust their word and analysis over that of a guy trying to save face for his dead comrades that probably thought it would be a cool story to challenge a US boat.

 

[Dachs]

The US Navy is probably one of the more trustworthy branches of the American military.

As opposed to...?

 

[Abegweit]

The US Navy is probably one of the more trustworthy branches of the American military.

It's relative, I suppose. They are all liars.

... a guy trying to save face for his dead comrades that probably thought it would be a cool story to challenge a US boat.

Yeah. Of course. That's certainly the explanation.

 

[Synobun]

As opposed to...?

A boat being sunk because they didn't follow code of conduct sounds much more reasonable than civilians getting executed because they were "suspicious". As an example.

As Patroklos said, the rules and list of operations in the navy is followed by the letter most of the time and nearly every mariner should know and understand it. Regardless of language and ethnic difference.

Yeah. Of course. That's certainly the explanation.

Most sources say that warnings were given and no response was provided. The ship had full right to fire upon the vessel. Civilians were killed but it is their fault for not acknowledging the massive vessel pointing its guns at it.

Alternatively, we can believe the survivor and assume that the vessel shot at a fishing boat for sh*ts and giggles.

Your choice what to believe, I think I'll go with the evidence side though, thanks.

 

[Dachs]

A boat being sunk because they didn't follow code of conduct sounds much more reasonable than civilians getting executed because they were "suspicious". As an example.

As Patroklos said, the rules and list of operations in the navy is followed by the letter most of the time and nearly every mariner should know and understand it. Regardless of language and ethnic difference.

No, I mean, your comment implied that you thought the Army, Air Force, or whatever was less trustworthy than the Navy for whatever reason.

 

[Abegweit]

Most sources say that warnings were given and no response was provided.

Who is this "most sources"? I have only seen two - the victims and the military.

The ship had full right to fire upon the vessel. Civilians were killed but it is their fault for not acknowledging the massive vessel pointing its guns at it.

Nonsense. It's murder. Pure and simple. It would still be even if the murderers had provided warned their victims about what they were about to do.

 

[wolfigor]

The idea that a tiny fishing boat would ignore warnings from a Death Machine is laughable on the face of it. No one is that foolish.

Probably in the world there are more fools than what you expect, because this case is less than unique.
It happened in February when an Indian fishing boat approached an Italian oil tanker in international water.
Their behaviour was consistent with pirates (again something far from unique in the region) and ignored all warning from the tanker.
The soldiers on board shot and killed some of the fishermen.

Again the tanker and the soldiers on board followed international rules and acted to defend themselves.
The fishermen ignored all warnings and rules... it's a bit like crossing a road with the red light: you ignore the rule at your own risk.

 

[Leoreth]

You forget that red lights are the vanguard of state violence.

 

[red_elk]

Basically, there can be two possible explanations,
- either fishermen ignored warning shots and decided to risk their lives for whatever reason
- or ship's crew decided that the situation is too risky and they don't have time for warnings. "Let's consider the first bullet (which didn't hit the boat) in machinegun burst, as a warning shot"

While the first variant is not improbable, the second seems more plausible to me. People usually tend to care for their lives more than to risk them.

 

[History_Buff]

As opposed to...?

To me the Navy has a much better reputation than the Army, Marines, and possibly even the Air Force when it comes to showing restraint.

I can't say it's deserved, but I trust a bunch of 18-24 year olds on a boat more than I do a bunch of 18-24 year olds in the desert carrying guns. Probably a symptom of the up close and personal nature of infantry work though.

 

[Abegweit]

Probably in the world there are more fools than what you expect, because this case is less than unique.
It happened in February when an Indian fishing boat approached an Italian oil tanker in international water.
Their behaviour was consistent with pirates (again something far from unique in the region) and ignored all warning from the tanker.
The soldiers on board shot and killed some of the fishermen.

Another case of murder by thugs and your account of that incident has about as much relationship with the truth as your account of this one. In that case, it is quite clear that the murderers lied. They are also being held in court awaiting trial for murder.

Another difference is that the Italian government has compensated the victims' families. Americans simply have no shame. Murder anyone anywhere on the planet and call it an accident.

Again the tanker and the soldiers on board followed international rules and acted to defend themselves.
The fishermen ignored all warnings and rules... it's a bit like crossing a road with the red light: you ignore the rule at your own risk.

Yes, of course. If I cross the street when the light is red, I can expect a hail of bullets.

 

[Formaldehyde]

To me the Navy has a much better reputation than the Army, Marines, and possibly even the Air Force when it comes to showing restraint.

You mean like the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, the second of which never really occurred, that led to our direct involvement in the Vietnam War? And the first incident was actually initiated by the USS Maddox after firing 3 "warning shots" at the NV patrol boats in international waters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]

Or blaming saboteurs for the USS Maine blowing up, which was likely due to an accident, that directly led to the Spanish-American War?

Or the Pueblo incident?

Or the P3 Orion that collided with a Chinese fighter?

 

[overkill9]

Another case of murder by thugs and your account of that incident has about as much relationship with the truth as your account of this one. In that case, it is quite clear that the murderers lied. They are also being held in court awaiting trial for murder.

Another difference is that the Italian government has compensated the victims' families. Americans simply have no shame. Murder anyone anywhere on the planet and call it an accident.

Yes, of course. If I cross the street when the light is red, I can expect a hail of bullets.

You cross the street in red light, or better yet in a busy interstate, you get hit by a car. Unless the driver was severely guilty of something else, you will be dead and no one will think you did anything right other than being an idiot. No court will prosecute the driver unless some egregious fault is found on his part in terms of driving on the freeway (he didn't stop way out, kinda difficult if anyone steps into the interstate with vehicles going 80miles an hour).

You probably think your family ought to sue the driver for his late penny when you were the moron, and if I was the driver being asked that by a family of such character, I would tell your family to pay for damage to my car, and fix it with their bare hands, and also wipe off your skin blood and other useless remains off the thread of my wheels for cremation so it doesn't waste space for burials for more responsible and people of better character more worthy of remembrance. If they do not try something like that, I would probably apologize for the unfortunate accident, and hope that their son's memory would be a happy one for the family, and maybe even offer to pay for the funeral cost.

 

[Abegweit]

You cross the street in red light, or better yet in a busy interstate, you get hit by a car.

Maybe. However, you will note the key difference here. The victim of this murder was not hit by a car. He was hit by a hail of bullets. If a car driver had fired on the jaywalker, he would quite rightly be charged with murder. He would also be charged if he didn't try to avoid the pedestrian.

No one even attempts to claim that the murderer in this case attempted to avoid the fisherman in any way. Same thing goes in the other incident.

On the contrary, to use your analogy, the official story is that the car driver warned the jaywalker that he'd better get out of the crosswalk immediately. Otherwise he will be killed so that the car could pass. Then somehow the pedestrian was stupid enough to ignore the gun pointed at his head.

Of course, he deserved it.

 

[overkill9]

Maybe. However, you will note the key difference here. The victim of this murder was not hit by a car. He was hit by a hail of bullets. If a car driver had fired on the jaywalker, he would quite rightly be charged with murder. He would also be charged if he didn't try to avoid the pedestrian.

No one even attempts to claim that the murderer in this case attempted to avoid the fisherman in any way. Same thing goes in the other incident.

On the contrary, to use your analogy, the official story is that the car driver warned the jaywalker that he'd better get out of the crosswalk immediately. Otherwise he will be killed so that the car could pass. Then somehow the pedestrian was stupid enough to ignore the gun pointed at his head.

Of course, he deserved it.

He was hit by a hail of bullets because he was getting close to a MILITARY SHIP with out authorization. All attempts made (Your lies saying this is not true is not depedent on any thing other than 'fisherman says so') to warn them either failed to reach them because they were ignorant, or was simply ignored.

I don't know which country would possibly allow some joker joyriding across the beam after something comparable to Cole happens to one of their ships, Do you really think military's procedures should be subordinate to your personal convenience?

Also, you analogy is wrong to begin with comparing red lighted cars to military vessels on guard for those who may try to target them, rightfully so since they are there to contain a nation who would use such tactics. The car does not have time to warn others other than last second horn, and anyone who crosses the street on red does deserve to be fined or at worst put in jail if repeat offender for endangering traffic. You mentioned red light only to back track and add that it was a car that stopped on red. That is an incorrect analogy governing civillian situation versus military one. Interstate would leave you dead and no guilt on the driver, which is more comparable since on interstate environment does not allow the driver to slow down excessively while en route between exits. I liked how you ignored that one.

Your sheer ignorance about military matters, proper etiquette and protocol between civilians and military personnel living in vastly different environment facing different dangers, and belief that everyone should get out of their way for your convenience without you not doing the job that requires the level of understanding any military and police force in the world would shows what a naive fool you are. It's because of sheltered idiots like to squealing about civil rights that real workers and activists gets side tracked.

You should get yourself to the embassy assange is hiding in . Reality is knocking at your door so you can answer for your naive anarchist-wannabe attitude.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You know they must have videotaped the "attack", which also must show the use of flares, warning shots, and other signals as they claim is standard operating procedure to warn boats to not approach. So where is it?

 

[Synobun]

You know they must have videotaped the "attack", which also must show the use of flares, warning shots, and other signals as they claim is standard operating procedure to warn boats to not approach. So where is it?

Last I checked, the US Navy is not a tourist group and don't have cameras pointed in every direction constantly rolling.

If a potential terrorist boat is approaching, I doubt the first thought going through your head will be, "Gee, I better make sure the camera's rolling."

As said earlier in the thread, you don't have as much time as you think you do at sea. A small ship filled with explosives can sink a big ship. Funny how explosions work, eh?

 

[overkill9]

Interesting how you protect the fisherman but never consider that fisherman had to duty to not alarm the ship the same way military ship had the duty to not duly alarm the civillians if not on a mission and civillian is not interfering in any way, which this fishing boat was. It was sheer ignorance on part of the fishing boat to think it was right. If, say someone firebombed a barrack wearing a white suit in one of your army bases, killing 15 men, should civillians be lounging around in white suits with bottles and matches nearby? If you don't know about this when it is blaring all over the tv, who are you to blame others?

This case is sheer ignorance and stupidity on part of the fisherman, whose actions raise eyebrows for even civilian fishing boats in terms of not responding to calls for identification or otherwise. Unless it is concretely proven that US ship's warnings were either not given, or not received by fault on part on the US, your biased opinions of trusting that fisherman's words alone is worthless.

Edit:

lol at you proving by opening your mouth how little you know about naval operations at sea.