Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Posted on 01/10/2008 10:02:48 PM PST by BlackVeil
The US Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said on Thursday there was "no way to know" if a threat radioed to US warships in the Strait of Hormuz came from Iranian speedboats, casting doubt on the earlier US version of Sunday's confrontation.
"There is no way to know where this (radioed threat) exactly came from. It could have come from the shore... or another vessel in the area," Lieutenant John Gay told AFP by telephone.
But he stressed that "the Iranian fastboats were acting in a very provocative and aggressive manner" towards the US warships in the strategic waterway at the time.
Weird, this take by an Admiral. WAR plays out on every front, remember.
BS … who the hell else would it be! Druids, mayhap!
Admiral?
I saw some boats just like those in Coral Gables . Did these have women water skiers in a pyramid ?
It was the Filipino Monkey Man. He would cuss us out all night on watch. It was a riot.
Hope he knows the difference between a pontoon and a torpedo.
Ping
Possible excuses for me: (1) I’m up way past my bedtime. (2) It was a sarcastic use of “Admiral”. (3) Obviously a hacked posting by the Chinese.
It is a odd story - I have seen different statement on this in various articles. Please add any details which come up.
War is on many fronts - indeed. Especially with Iranians. The Arabs have a rueful saying that you need 100 devious people to equal one ordinary Persian. There might be a devious deceit going on.
However, this guy is an admiral of the fleet, there is some US reason why they are making this statement.
Terrible headline.
Yes - terrible post by me too. I have a lieutenant as an admiral. An error gets made by one poster, then picked up by another. However, I mean he is an official spokesperson.
Only if they were clothed in Burkas.
Bull**** headline and poorly written article.
The BOATS were Iranian. The Navy was asked if the transmission threatening to lay mines and explode them was confirmed to be from the Iranians.
As the person transmitting didn’t identify themselves the Navy did *assume* that the radio transmission was in response to their repeated radio warnings to move away from the ships and therefore, by extension, was Iranian.
The MSM is once again splitting hairs and trying to make the military look bad.
Nonsense.
This is a reporters wishful out-of-context interpretation of what some Navy lieutenant said.
Could such a radio call have come from shore or someplace else? Sure. Is it likely? No. Of course there’s no practical way to effectively tell where a radio call is coming from. Duh.
Presuming that it was a VHF radio, though, brings it into the range of line-of-sight. A VHF can reach over the horizon, but not very far and the signal degrades quickly.
If you have boats close aboard and you get a loud clear VHF call its pretty darn reasonable to believe it came from one of those boats.
Is there some remote possibility it was someone else? Sure. But as our friend Occam might have said: if you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.
This is pure spin.
Sure, they probably can’t establish exactly were the radio signal came from, but what’s the probability of the boats being there, them dropping things into the water, the radio transmission happening at the time it did, in that place, in that language......?
The fact that they can’t locate the source 100% does not reduce the significance of the transmission; it simply does not add that additional incriminating (for a lack of better words) aspect to it. The media loves to distort. The Commander is not retracting or changing any aspect of the events as they unfolded. He’s simply stating a technical fact; in this case he was not able to direction find the source of the emission. Does that change anything?
Think about it this way. An analogy- A person is murdered at an ATM. The culprit is caught. We have DNA, motive, witnesses, a functional timeline, a sworn confession; BUT, the camera on the ATM did not get a picture of the murderer. Does not having a face shot of the murderer equate to the police not having a case? Does the chief of police stating to the media that he didn’t get a camera shot mean he’s changing his story? Does that cast doubt about what happened?
Key phrase in this article: “casting doubt on the earlier US version of Sunday’s confrontation.”
No it doesn’t. Only in the mind of some idiot that wants to interpret it that way.
In those waters it might be more dangerous not to.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.