• US Navy fires on ship in Persian Gulf
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801429]There's no justification for randomly firing on a ship and killing an innocent person.[/QUOTE] well that's great because they didn't "randomly fire on a ship", they gave a bunch of warnings and plenty of opportunity for it to retreat
[QUOTE=Zambies!;36801460]OK then what should of the USS Cole done?[/QUOTE] That's a pretty stupid question for or against because they didn't know that was going to happen.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801429]There's no justification for randomly firing on a ship and killing an innocent person.[/QUOTE] Define randomly? They gave them sufficient warning. It's not like they decided to fuck someones day up for no reason. It was a Civilian crewed refuel ship for the Navy. If someone pulled a Cole, that thing would've gone up like a firecracker. And then a lot more people would be dead.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801429]There's no justification for randomly firing on a ship and killing an innocent person.[/QUOTE] Randomly, alright.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36801476]well that's great because they didn't "randomly fire on a ship", they gave a bunch of warnings and plenty of opportunity for it to retreat[/QUOTE] by bunch of warnings you mean one warning shot? Then they just jumped to start firing on the ship. Maybe the ship had mechanical issues? Could that have crossed anyone's mind on that ship? [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;36801495]Define randomly? They gave them sufficient warning. It's not like they decided to fuck someones day up for no reason. It was a Civilian crewed refuel ship for the Navy. If someone pulled a Cole, that thing would've gone up like a firecracker. And then a lot more people would be dead.[/QUOTE] So kill people based on entirely on paranoia? You're saying it's okay to kill anyone who gets remotely near an armed US ship? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Didn't actually read the OP" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801497] You're saying it's okay to kill anyone who gets remotely near an armed US ship?[/QUOTE] Four S warning. It's not completely unjustified.
They were an unidentified ship. They gave them several warnings and a warning shot before firing.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801497]You're saying it's okay to kill anyone who gets remotely near an armed US ship?[/QUOTE] When they ignore all warnings and continue to charge at you, you have to do something. You're not just going to sit there and watch them ram your ship with a potential IED. [quote]Navy officials told Al Jazeera the crew first tried to hail the vessel via radio and on loudspeaker, as well as by flashing lights and firing warning shots. They then shot at the boat with a 50 calibre weapon.[/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/2012716163648139556.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801497]by bunch of warnings you mean one warning shot? Then they just jumped to start firing on the ship. [/QUOTE] hey hey there's a thing called "reading the article" it's p wonderful
[QUOTE=Zambies!;36801540]Four S warning. It's not completely unjustified.[/QUOTE] Four S warning literally takes nothing into account. Other than a ship is getting near you. This whole concept of just starting to shoot after a warning is fucking dangerous. [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36801579]hey hey there's a thing called "reading the article" it's p wonderful[/QUOTE] Something you clearly didn't do [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;36801569]When they ignore all warnings and continue to charge at you, you have to do something. You're not just going to sit there and watch them ram your ship with a potential IED. [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/2012716163648139556.html[/url][/QUOTE] How do you go from hailing to just unloading onto it? It's literally fuelled by paranoia. Giving the US this right to start shooting at ships because they're too close when it clearly doesn't have the capacity do anything to is stupid.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801497]by bunch of warnings you mean one warning shot? Then they just jumped to start firing on the ship. Maybe the ship had mechanical issues? Could that have crossed anyone's mind on that ship? [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] So kill people based on entirely on paranoia? You're saying it's okay to kill anyone who gets remotely near an armed US ship?[/QUOTE] You're not even trying to think. You MUST know it's obvious that ships can't just get as close as they want to any military vessel filled with fuel. You put that together with a FAIR procedure that leaves only extremely limited excuses and you have this. The mechanical issue would have to be both the throttle AND the rudder, that's an awfully rare thing to accommodate for when you could be on fire unless you act. Honestly hope someone snipes me putting this into words better.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801580]Something you clearly didn't do[/QUOTE] hm? [quote]The U.S. ship [B]verbally warned the smaller boat[/B] when it was 1,200 yards (1,100 meters) away and fired [B]at least one warning shot[/B] before the decision was made to fire shots to disable the boat, the officials said. "In accordance with Navy force protection procedures, the sailors on the USNS Rappahannock ... used a series of [B]non-lethal, preplanned responses[/B] to warn the vessel [B]before[/B] resorting to lethal force," the Navy said in a statement. "The U.S. crew [B]repeatedly attempted to warn[/B] the vessel's operators to turn away from their deliberate approach. [B]When those efforts failed[/B] to deter the approaching vessel, the security team on the Rappahannock fired rounds from a .50-caliber machine gun."[/quote] [sub]nice ban[/sub]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801429]There's no justification for randomly firing on a ship and killing an innocent person.[/QUOTE] They didn't randomly fire, though. According to the article, it was a large place where a ship didn't need to get close to the military vessel in question. The military vessel gave warnings, including a warning shot (which, as other people have said, is something that needs no translation), and followed protocol exactly. Not that I want to be alarmist or something like that, but what evidence do you have that that person was innocent?
Is it bad I keep snickering just a little at the wording of "pleasure craft"?
I think it's a lost cause trying to convince him why he's being stupid by saying this was unjustified. [editline]d[/editline] Oh, ban. That works too.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801580] How do you go from hailing to just unloading onto it? It's literally fuelled by paranoia. Giving the US this right to start shooting at ships because they're too close when it clearly doesn't have the capacity do anything to is stupid.[/QUOTE] Just like a dingy didn't have the capacity to put a hole in the USS Cole and kill 17 people. [img]http://i.imgur.com/V7LMQ.jpg[/img] Not to mention, this ship is a fuel tanker. It was full of gas. It wouldn't take much to turn it into a giant fireball.
kaboom it's gone.
I've got nothing wrong with this, they were in a region where it's very conceivable that someone would try to attack a US Navy ship, they gave the vessel ample warning before opening fire. All standard procedure, shouldn't be such a big deal.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36797832]They give 2 warnings: verbal and a warning shot. If you don't understand the verbal, then you sure as hell better know what the gunshot means.[/QUOTE] "What's this... they're shouting at me? I bet they're shouting, no , screaming in utter FEAR! Ooo, now they're firing weapons at me? Hah, that missed by a mile! With that aim of theirs, this'll be a piece o..." RIP small white pleasure craft.
[QUOTE=OvB;36796301]a Small white pleasure craft is not a ship.[/QUOTE] Iran used more speedboats than anything else when we were pissing on their parade in the 80's. Anything can be weaponized, and in the area small boats are known to be used
This is what we've been waiting for, this is it boys, this is war!
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;36802084]This is what we've been waiting for, this is it boys, this is war![/QUOTE]The President is on the line.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36801580]Four S warning literally takes nothing into account. Other than a ship is getting near you. This whole concept of just starting to shoot after a warning is fucking dangerous. [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] Something you clearly didn't do [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] How do you go from hailing to just unloading onto it? It's literally fuelled by paranoia. Giving the US this right to start shooting at ships because they're too close when it clearly doesn't have the capacity do anything to is stupid.[/QUOTE] We've had that right for a while, as has everyone else. If you have a fifty caliber gun shot in your direction, that is a damn clear warning to back the fuck off. If you proceed to head towards them, then you're an idiot. The crew on the USS Cole made the mistake of letting them get to close.Got plenty of good people killed and fucked up the ship. The only way to keep these incidents from happening is to make sure nobody has the chance to do it again. Its the crew of that boat that are at fault here for not taking the warnings seriously, not the USN. [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Spooter;36801624]Is it bad I keep snickering just a little at the wording of "pleasure craft"?[/QUOTE] You made me laugh.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;36802084]This is what we've been waiting for, this is it boys, this is war![/QUOTE] [video=youtube;8Yb3fOs3NlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yb3fOs3NlM[/video] "Whats going on?!?!" "They sent a small white yacht at the Rappahannock! We're going to war!" Hooray for a terrible quality video!
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;36802154][video=youtube;8Yb3fOs3NlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yb3fOs3NlM[/video] "Whats going on?!?!" "They sent a small white yacht at the Rappahannock! We're going to war!" Hooray for a terrible quality video![/QUOTE] [video=youtube;bX7V6FAoTLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc[/video]
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36798330]I know, and I don't think this boat had anything to do with Iran. I'm just wondering if that would be in their repertoire.[/QUOTE] Oh I'm sorry. I misread that as "why would..." My mistake.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.