US warships frightened by Iranian boats; War of Terror; US foreign policy, etc...

[S.A.M.]

None of us, Sam. We all relish blood-letting and indiscriminate human atrocities. We all yearn for massive destruction and death, without giving the slightest thought to the moral and ethical consequences of our country's unstoppable lust for blood.

Looking at the consequences of all the US interventions since WWII, it certainly seems so.

 

[superstring01]

No, you've just seen too many cowboy films, and think the world is made up good guys and bad guys. Also, because you probably watched the A-Team in your more impressionable years, TV has taught you that no one gets injured in a firefight, and when a hand grenade goes off next to someone they just jump really high into the air and land in a pond.

Huh? I Never watched so much television until I went to Europe and sat with my friends and watched "The Fresh Prince" and "Baywatch" day in and day out. I had to sit in three countries and listen to giddy kids attempt to recite the words to the theme songs of every 80s-to-early-90s theme song ever created. Including the A-Team.

Moreover, I will assure you, the people I knew in Spain and France sat and ooh'ed and aah'ed just as much as we did during the first Gulf war.

~String

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No, you've just seen too many cowboy films, and think the world is made up good guys and bad guys. Also, because you probably watched the A-Team in your more impressionable years, TV has taught you that no one gets injured in a firefight, and when a hand grenade goes off next to someone they just jump really high into the air and land in a pond.

And you seem to think that world problems can always be settled with out any blood shead.

I wonder how fast you would resort to physical attack in a face to face debate, and just how much of your lip would be present in your retoric if you had to face some one face to face.

Your are a prime example why words don't settle thing, you have never given a inch on any of your retoric, you provide no proof or source to back any of your contentions, and the only way to beat you, would be to beat you, much the same way as thing happen in the world today.

Islam hasn't given a inch on their goals for 500+ years.

They only negociate temporary cease fires to regroup, and reenforce, and attack again in accordance with the Teachings of the Quran.

Details of the truce in Islamic law. Here is a passage from Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), a Shafi'i Sharia manual endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo as conforming to the "practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community":

Truces are permissible, not obligatory....Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim...If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud....The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax; namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. -- Umdat al-Salik, o9.16

Muslim attitudes towards non-muslims
In the book the author describes the 3 territorial divisions of the world from the perspective of Islam. [3]

House of war:The land of the non-believers (harbis), called the lands of war dar al-harb where infidels to be fought because they oppose the establishment of Islamic law in their lands. As enemies of Allah they are accorded no rights: they, themselves and their property becomes fair game (mubah) for all Muslims. They can be taken as slaves, kidnapped for ransom, robbed, raped, maimed or killed with impunity. War is to be waged against them in order to Islamize their territory which, according to the beliefs of Islam, must be conquered for Allah. If they resist, Islamic law provides for the deportation or massacre of the men and the enslavement of women and children.

House of truce:The land of non-believers currently under truce which is in respite between wars dar al-hudna. In principle, a truce with non-believers must not last more than ten years, after which jihad should resume. There are only two circumstances that justify that a truce be engaged with infidels by the Islamic authority. The first circumstance is one is where the Muslims forces are too weak to vanquish the infidels and the truce will allow them to regroup and restrengthen and the second one is whereby infidel states pay a tribute to the Muslims or contribute by numerous services to the advancement of Islam.In other words the truce is authorized only if it helps improve the Muslim’s situation and weakens the infidels. Truce is not a natural condition; it is bought by tribute. If the infidels cannot provide economic advantages in exchange for the truce, hostilities are resumed. Furthermore, only treaties that conform to Islamic prescriptions are valid; if these conditions are not fulfilled the treaty is worthless

 

[countezero]

No, you've just seen too many cowboy films, and think the world is made up good guys and bad guys. Also, because you probably watched the A-Team in your more impressionable years, TV has taught you that no one gets injured in a firefight, and when a hand grenade goes off next to someone they just jump really high into the air and land in a pond.

How did you know?

Looking at the consequences of all the US interventions since WWII, it certainly seems so.

Another brilliant eructation from one of the site's most objective and well-respected contributors — one whose knowledge of the events in the Second World War appears unmatched.

Goof fixed. Happy?

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

And you seem to think that world problems can always be settled with out any blood shead.

I wonder how fast you would resort to physical attack in a face to face debate, and just how much of your lip would be present in your retoric if you had to face some one face to face.

Your are a prime example why words don't settle thing, you have never given a inch on any of your retoric, you provide no proof or source to back any of your contentions, and the only way to beat you, would be to beat you, much the same way as thing happen in the world today.

....and I bet the fact that you can't "beat me" makes you really frustrated, huh, tough guy? I think in trying to make the point that I believe things can be settled without bloodshed which may or may not be true, in this case, turns out to illustrate the fact that you think that everything CAN. You are a violent, primal macho cowboy at heart by the looks of things, and people like you are why things like the My Lai and Haditha massacres happened.

 

[S.A.M.]

Another brilliant eructation from one of the site's most objective and well-respected contributors, one's whose knowledge of the events in the Second World War appears unmatched.

Yeah, I had a REAL education where you learn English grammar and punctuation.

Helps in comprehension.

 

[superstring01]

Yeah, I had a REAL education where you learn English grammar and punctuation.

Helps in comprehension.

Yes, SAM, because that's relevant.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, SAM, because that's relevant.

~String

Knowing a language you are attempting to communicate/research/study/read in? Absolutely.

e.g.

If you flip over the rock of American foreign
policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...

invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing
governments ... suppressing movements
for social change ... assassinating
political leaders ... perverting
elections ... manipulating labor unions ...
manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...
torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...
mercenaries ...

It's not a pretty picture.
It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

 

[superstring01]

Knowing a language you are attempting to communicate/research/study/read in? Absolutely.

He did ask after my knowledge on WWII.:shrug:

Yes, and I can see how you could easily confuse the topic of war with grammar.

~String

 

[Ghost_007]

And you seem to think that world problems can always be settled with out any blood shead.

I wonder how fast you would resort to physical attack in a face to face debate, and just how much of your lip would be present in your retoric if you had to face some one face to face.

Your are a prime example why words don't settle thing, you have never given a inch on any of your retoric, you provide no proof or source to back any of your contentions, and the only way to beat you, would be to beat you, much the same way as thing happen in the world today.

Islam hasn't given a inch on their goals for 500+ years.

They only negociate temporary cease fires to regroup, and reenforce, and attack again in accordance with the Teachings of the Quran.

This thread as well?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, and I can see how you could easily confuse the topic of war with grammar.

~String

Nope only with a lack of comprehension.

There is plenty of pertinent information on post WWII interventions of the US; books and books have been written on them.

As such anyone who considers such knowledge to be specialised obviously suffers from a lack of comprehension.

ey min ef ey rote liek dis, wot du u tink I reed liek?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Nope only with a lack of comprehension.

There is plenty of pertinent information on post WWII interventions of the US; books and books have been written on them.

As such anyone who considers such knowledge to be specialised obviously suffers from a lack of comprehension.

ey min ef ey rote liek dis, wot du u tink I reed liek?

Comprehension, yes SpAM, comprehension, spelling grammar, and punctuation, are useless with out comprehension.

 

[joepistole]

SAM, if you have any influence over those boats I would tell them to cool it. The Navy announced today they are loosing patience with these Iranian boats. If the Navy looses their guns it won't be pretty, those things fire over a thousand rounds a second. The machine gun fire will rip those boats to shreds in seconds.

 

[hypewaders]

joepistole: "SAM, if you have any influence over those boats I would tell them to cool it."

Yes, and while your at it Sam, tell all your rowdy friends to cease all resistance to Pax Americana! -Wow, I've seen you marveled-at before around here, but never yet exalted as a modern-day Helen of Troy. All Hail!

Seriously, the United States Navy is not eager to play any part in a new Gulf of Tonkin. Nor do our Skippers normally behave like cowboy-Captain Will Rogers In the present situation, Sailors clearly understand today just who will take the first significant casualties in the first few minutes of a meaningless shootout with Iran- whatever propagandists in Washington may have to say as they pump up everyday encounters in an attempt to titillate nationalism and confuse the USAmerican public with aggressive emotionalism.

My compliments to the cool Sailors of the United States Navy for conducting themselves lawfully as representatives of the USA in international waters. Kudos also to the patriots privy, who have been exposing the reckless warmongering swirling around this for what it is.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Yeah, I had a REAL education where you learn English grammar and punctuation.

Helps in comprehension.

Well then show some comprehension, and I seem to have no problem getting my point across to you in a concise and clear manner, it is your comprehension that is the problem, as far as your education I would give you failing grades in Research F-, History F-, Social Studies F- Debate F-and Comportment F-,

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM, if you have any influence over those boats I would tell them to cool it. The Navy announced today they are loosing patience with these Iranian boats. If the Navy looses their guns it won't be pretty, those things fire over a thousand rounds a second. The machine gun fire will rip those boats to shreds in seconds.

I suspect the Americans were making it up as usual. Not for the first time. After Iraq, I would say they have zero international credibility.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

Kudos also to the patriots privy, who have been exposing the reckless warmongering swirling around this for what it is.

Good to see that some Americans at least are getting tired of the lies and hypocrisy.

 

[Tiassa]

No wonder they're scared ...?

Source: NYTimes.com
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html
Title: "Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game", by Thom Shanker
Date: January 12, 2008

No wonder American officials are so frightened by Iranian speedboats:

There is a reason American military officers express grim concern over the tactics used by Iranian sailors last weekend: a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a naval convoy to inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.

In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.

"The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. "The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes."

(Shanker)

Or maybe not. Seriously, why would they admit this publicly? According to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, "It’s clear, strategically, where the Iranian military has gone .... For the years that this strategic shift toward their small, fast boats has taken place, we’ve been very focused on that."

So, like, does that mean our Navy is now prepared to handle such an attack?

In the meantime, the Times is still pushing the early official line:

In the encounter last Sunday, the commander of one American warship trained an M240 machine gun — which fires upward of 10 armor-piercing slugs per second — on an Iranian boat that pulled within 200 yards of the American vessel. But the Iranians turned away before the commander gave the order to fire.

(ibid)

This despite Gareth Porter's article for Inter Press Service on Thursday, which notes:

Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea", new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats.

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident. That suggests that the threatening message may not have come in immediately after the initial warning to Iranian boats from a U.S. warship, as appears to do on the video.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

(Porter)

Question: If the story is bogus, does the administration think it can get away with it by making it sound so obviously bogus that nobody would believe they could be so stupid as to present such an unconvincing wag?
____________________

See Also:

Porter, Gareth. "Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel". Inter Press Service. January 10, 2008. See http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747

 

[joepistole]

I suspect the Navy was overwhelmed because prior to their exercise, no one was expecting such an occurance. And even now it seems like a very unlikely event. But United States capital vessels (does not include swift boats, landing vessels) are equiped radar controlled gattling guns that fire at a rate of 4,500 20 milimeter rounds per second. The system was designed for fighting low flying air craft and missles and surface craft and has been in operation since the late seventies.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

Almost any system can be overwhelmed as supply of munitions is not inexhaustable. The question is how likely is it that the system will be overwhelmed? And in the case of Iran, I think if very unlikely that they would be able to field more speed boats than could be safely handled by the United States Navy.

 

[hypewaders]

I've already posted links to the tangible threats. They come in jinking evasively just above the water at more than mach 2, and they're designed specifically for overwhelming Phalanx. The Soviets developed Sunburn as a carrier-killer. But an even more serious threat is the reason-killer, and it has already penetrated our defenses in the USA.

The real story here, that is characteristically ignored by a complicit major US media, is the clear evidence of belligerent distortions of reality that are endangering our futures. Dangerous people are spinning events with the clear intention of riling up USAmericans into a wider and much more furious conflict.

We've seen things get out of hand before. It happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, when a non-event sparked a bitter and unecessary war. It happened before right in the Persian Gulf, when the Captain of the USS Vincennes murdered the passengers of a civilian airliner, succumbing to an unprofessional state of excitement over Iranian patrol boats. Iranians haven't forgotten.

But our most threatening enemy has no foreign nationality or creed. Our most threatening enemy has invaded our heads, amplified by our sensationalized press, and echoed in our jingoistic political messages. We are being relentlessly, repetitively programmed through a full spectrum of media to "Git Some". These are obvious indicators of a vulnerable national mentality that the enemies of the status-quo eagerly exploit: Those who want to overturn world order eagerly anticipate US impulsivity and aggression.

We cannot claim to be combatting terrorism while ignoring, leaving unchallenged, the cries that rise from within our own society. These appeals also occupy the thoughts of innumerable USAmericans now and for so long poised with fingers on so many deadly triggers. Reason tells us that escalation is stupid and self-destructive to US world status, to our economy, and to our way of life. Rage tells us to teach those foreign bastards a bloody lesson.

We cannot hope to resist any provocations from the outside, until we can recognize and confront the enemies in our midst that are howling for blood, displacing reason with rage, and beckoning us to our own destruction.

 

[joepistole]

Nice verbiage Hype, but I think you went over the deep end. No one hear wants war...except Bush II and his ilk. And he is on his way out. The American people are tired of his lies and incompetence. When our troops are endangered, they need to respond with whatever force is necessary to save their lives. In this case the enemy has been warned on several occasions. We have here an enemy who hides behind children and burkaks to kill and murder not only Americans but children and women of their own people. I call them cowards, any one or group that uses innocents as a shield is indeed a coward.
As for the Iranian plane, you know as well as I that it was where it did not belong. It acted like an enemy warcraft and it was treated as such. It did not respond to international requests to identify itself. And the United States paid reparations to the Iranian people and apologized for the incident. If cowards would not use civilian airliners and hide behind burkaks and children to carrry out their bloody deeds, these things would not happen.