Aloysius Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 US's Version: [url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=jRbYKKM5cAE"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=jRbYKKM5cAE[/url] Iran's version: [url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GZCX5RliWI"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GZCX5RliWI[/url] ABC NEWS: U.S.: Voices on Recording May Not Have Been From Iranian Speedboats [url="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702"]http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702[/url] Now, I still don't feel confident of a definitive answer to what really happened there, but THE MORAL OF THE STORY: don't jump to conclusions, don't be so jumpy and willing to go to war. Prudence is a good thing. I lean towards either the Navy's suggestion may have been accurate, OR (and don't call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, I'm not claiming I believe this I just don't have proof either way and it is entirely plausible) they were attempting to establish a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, but decided to back away a little from it with this story... just put it out there enough to get people's nerves on edge over Iran. I lean towards the former, though, I think it very likely that there was a transmission from somewhere other than the boats attempting to provoke a war on the Iranian side. But I do not know, and neither do you. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 [size=1]That is strange...I havnt heard anything about this! Im still confused as to what happened... So there were two boats speeding around and then the Navy got a transmission that said "We will blow you up" (or something like that)...but the other video shows the boats sitting still and what not... The voice with the threatening remark did not sound the same as the guy in speaking in the second video...it didnt seem like he had quite as heavy of an accent. So what happened? Did they get shot at? Whats all the comotion about? Did anything happen? Or did they just speed around then go home? [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 no one opened fire. the main debate is regarding whether we should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Nothing happened. In the end, the Iranian boats acted just like boats trying to get a look at the numbers of the Warships, not like boats who had a plan to make the ships explode after two minutes. The US Navy released the video and caused an uproar. I guess the theory is that maybe Iran is out trying to provoke US navy warships, I guess then when the navy destroys the crafts the world would cry foul or something. Now obviously, if they had really done that, the Navy would have every right to have attacked the boats... they may be small, but they very well could be packing explosives or something so the warships had every right to defend themselves. It is good that they showed prudence, IMO, because it turns out that it is likely that the voice did not originate from those ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 [size=1]Yes...the video was kinda eery to watch. I agree that the navy ships had every right to defend themselves if they saw those boats as a threat. They could have been suicide boaters! Who knows, they may have just needed to ram into one of those ships and the whole thing would have gone! But good thing they didnt...hopefully they can figure out where that transmission came from! [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamesfanatic04 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) The crew opperated with Courage Honor and Conviction, and if one of those Iranian boats came to close then heck yes blow it. The dhabis were trying to pull a stunt for attention. (dhabi= abu dhabi, navy for arabic/arab) Edited January 11, 2008 by gamesfanatic04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 The Navy is not entirely sure about that. They have indicated that it is likely that the radio voice may have come from somewhere other than these particular boats. But on a deeper level, we ought to be wary of the possibility that this may be a Gulf of Tonkin style excuse to escalate tensions in a drive towards war with Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angelique Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I have a gut feeling that the Iranians were trying to start a major incident with us--fortunately, we refused to "bite". While I totally agree that we have every right to protect ourselves from unprovoked attack, this seems to have been a "feeler" by the Iranians--to see if they pushed, would we push back, and if we had--I hate to think what would have happened. And frankly, right now I think most of the people in that part of the world are a little trigger-happy! So in this instance, in hindsight, I think we were wise NOT to respond. What worries me is: what happens NEXT?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Keep in mind that the Navy is not entirely sure that the voice came from those boats, and it is entirely possible for anyone either on shore or in another boat to have made that statement. The video put out by Iran confirms the idea that it may not have been a transmission from the actual vessels. From the New York Times: " The audio includes a heavily accented voice warning in English that the Navy warships would explode. However, the recording carries no ambient noise — the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind — that would be expected if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small boats that sped around the three-ship American convoy. Pentagon officials said they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from shore, or from another ship nearby, although it might have come from one of the five fast boats with a high-quality radio system. " From someone claiming to have experience in the Navy: " All ships at sea use a common UHF frequency, Channel 16, also known as “bridge-to bridge” radio. Over here, near the U.S., and throughout the Mediterranean, Ch. 16 is used pretty professionally, i.e., chatter is limited to shiphandling issues, identifying yourself, telling other ships what your intentions are to avoid mishaps, etc. But over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970’s music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.) On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the “explode” comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility. " In this case, the Iranian version of events may very well be accurate, and I believe it is. They were simply requesting the numbers of the ships, they approached closer because they were unreadable at first. To say that this is simply a misunderstanding would be giving the benefit of the doubt to the government. And to say that this very well might be being offered as a type of Gulf of Tonkin event is not far-fetched at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamesfanatic04 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Even though I'm just in DEPS I'm a tad suspiscious of the Iranian's motives. Besides, if it really was a frame job why didn't the destroyer just 86 the fast boats and make up what it wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 because maliciously threatening boats escalate tensions far better than destroyed boats. the facts indicate that the transmission very likely did not come from the speedboats, it did not have the type of background noise that would have been present. one might say the video Iran released edited out the portion where the threat was transmitted... but if that was true, did they also edit in an entirely different radio system while they secretly held highly advanced radios sealed from all background noises? no, it seems clear to me that this transmission most likely came from the land (if it is not a fabrication). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Aloysius, you make good points there, with regards to the radio signals and whatnot, but how do we explain how the dialog between the coalition operator and the voice was perfectly in sync? The voice said "I am coming to you" then the American spoke for like 15 seconds, and then the voice said "you will blow up..." etc. this pressures one to beleive rather that either it was made up or there was a threat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 It is my understanding that anyone with a radio on land could have been monitoring the radios and heard everything that was said. likely the person on land was trying to provoke something, not the revolutionary guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Regardless of the message, I think the Navy has to be really careful about fast boats around the warships. The USS Cole was bombed using a small little raft that got too close. Regardless of the message the Iranians sent (or whoever sent), those fast boats should be more careful. If everyone knows the world is already on high tensions, you would think they might take a little more care if they're just trying to read numbers. It wouldn't be that hard to tell the US ships their intentions ect. The USS Hopper acted correctly; and someone needs to tell the Iranians to be a bit more careful before they get blow away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 [quote name='rkwright' post='1444542' date='Jan 11 2008, 05:08 PM']The USS Hopper acted correctly; and someone needs to tell the Iranians to be a bit more careful before they get blow away.[/quote] Whilst I sympathize with this viewpoint concerning ships in the middle of the ocean, credence should be given to the proximity to the Iranian shore in this case. Though something tells me the US Navy don't go jollying around the Iranian border daring them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now