Pentagon: Video of Iranian Boats Confronting US Warships »
Posted by: AlphaGnosis 7 months, 2 weeks ago314 Comments Report this Story
The incident, which President Bush denounced Tuesday as a "provocative act," was videotaped by a crew member on the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, 1 of 3 ships that faced down five Iranian boats in a flare-up early Sunday.
Read Full Story at breitbart.tv
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 314
-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.62 Replies
-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.60 Replies
-
0%
CaptainLucid7 months, 2 weeks ago
I am surprised we went in close with the copters and then landing marines. I would have just launched a few tomahawks. Too bad we don't still have the Iowa class battleships around. I would have loved to what a 16 inch broadside would have done. Great video.
Reply-
-
0%
SpazMat7 months, 2 weeks ago
Back than, tomahawks were toooooo expensive.
Now they are "just" in the couple hundred thousand range, IIRC.
But nothing shows "resolve" like putting your men's lives on the line.
Reply -
0%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
"Too bad we don't still have the Iowa class battleships"
Nothing says hello quit like a 16 in. blast across the bow!
Reply-
-
0%
tkyrchncs7 months, 2 weeks ago
And nothing says goodbye like five little boxes in the water, LOL. I love it. A US Naval Group bamboozled by a handful of desert nomads in speedboats no bigger than my ski boat. Just come on home where you belong boys, and maybe the fearsome Persian Armada will stay at home too.
Reply-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.9 Replies
-
-
-
-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
"The Cole was done by Al Qaeda who we seem to have a little trouble finding these past few years."
al-queda has been found around the world as evidenced by their numerous mass-murder attacks. If you mean finding the titular head of al-queda most experts agree he is hiding in northwest Pakistan in the barbaric, lawless region that exists there.
"So getting back to the question, what would Iran gain from attacking a US warship?" I will try to explain in simple words.
1. Iran pulls the tiger's tail and the tiger only growls. Iran dances with glee and leaves the assumption that the tiger is afraid of it.
2. Iran's boats are sunk and Iran dances with glee saying that the ships were only "identifying" plainly marked US warships.
3. A US warship is harmed or sunk and Iran dances with glee leaving the assumption that US forces are vulnerable and weak.
Reply-
-
0%
tkyrchncs7 months, 2 weeks ago
We have exactly 2 valid reasons to be anywhere in the Middle East: PEACEFUL commerce, and PEACEFUL diplomacy. Conducting military operations there is expensive and counterproductive. The Iranians have no reason to fear us because even if we kill them they will go to heaven, so the very best we will ever come off there is the same level of barbarity we claim to be fighting. There is no reason for them NOT to taunt us, and I for one think it is funny. Watching our pres on his indignant high horse is hysterical.
Reply-
0%
SpazMat7 months, 2 weeks ago
A lot of people do not understand that basic difference in our would views (our being US and Iran), and the effect it has on how perceive and react to different things.
Iran did not care about what happened to the guys who got scared and cold at Abu Ghraib, but it was a spectacular opportunity to tweak us, at no cost.
The IRG has the martyr complex thing to a T, but not the same way we in the west see it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
lol...their gambit is so much more sophisticated that what you've described. Go read Clauzewitz' treatise on objectives of limited objective offensive actions.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
yes, absolutely correct. they were there to provoke reactions and study responses, a sound military tactic executed well. I don't have to hate my enemy to kill them and I can admire work well done. I'll still kill them if I have to but this is routine stuff. Hopefully, we're doing the same thing with our enemies.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hmmm...a couple of little speed boats "harassing" several big, bad US military ships. The Iranians are stupid if they did that, but seems to me we have over-reacted, too. Comparable to anyone trying to swat a few flies buzzing around their heads. Take it all in stride, America...be on guard, but don't do anything so stupid you'll regret it later.
Reply-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
"The Iranians are stupid if they did that, but seems to me we have over-reacted, too." How did we over-react? Did you forget the USS Cole?
A "little speedboat" that killed several sailors and almost sank the ship.
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect7 months, 2 weeks ago
17 were killed, and 39 injured, to be accurate. The USS Cole was attacked in harbor, not on the high seas, which makes a big difference. Also, there were 3 US ships present, making any attack on them highly improbable. Not impossible, mind you, just unlikey. I just think it's a good thing the captain had the smarts to keep his/her cool and not fire upon them, making the situation possibly worse. I can imagine a captain like our fearless leader, Bush, being there, firing first and asking questions later. Then we'd be in another mess.
Reply-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
"17 were killed, and 39 injured, to be accurate. The USS Cole was attacked in harbor, not on the high seas, which makes a big difference."
Nonsense, we know from past experience what damage small, high speed boats filled with explosives can do. In international waters or at port, the danger is the same.
"Also, there were 3 US ships present, making any attack on them highly improbable."
More nonsense. Suicide attacks are not "highly improbable". 1,3 or 10 targets. Makes no difference.
"I just think it's a good thing the captain had the smarts to keep his/her cool and not fire upon them, making the situation possibly worse."
Not nonsense. Showed a great deal of restraint.
"I can imagine a captain like our fearless leader, Bush, being there, firing first and asking questions later."
I can imagine that under Bush's leadership, orders were given to use maximum restraint. The outcome is clear on that point.
Reply -
0%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
"I can imagine a captain like our fearless leader, Bush, being there, firing first and asking questions later"
You can " imagine" all you want. But why? Bush is in charge we did not firing first and asking questions later.
Seems what you "imagine" contradicts reality.
Can you " imagine" this? One of our ships is entering the port of Yemen, a small boat heads for our ship loaded with explosives, but fortunately it sinks cause they over loaded it.
Now 5 months later "imagine" another ship entering the port of Yemen, a small boat heads for our ship loaded with explosives. The Captain of the ship has no knowledge of the attempt 5 months earlier and takes no extra precautions, bummer cause this time the small boat hit its target.
So what does that tell us about the commander in chief who with held knowledge of the attempt 5 months earlier?
Reality check none of this has to be "imagined" it all really happened.
Reply
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs7 months, 2 weeks ago
By having battleships in the Gulf of Hormuz, maybe? By having troops in Iraq and Afganistan, maybe? By all the current sabre-rattling at Iran, maybe? By torturing captives, maybe? How long a list would you like of how we have over-reacted, and how far back would you like to go? I think this is hysterical! They wave a red flag at the bull and the bull RUNS AWAY!
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect7 months, 2 weeks ago
If you read the latest article, we're not even sure if the speedboats were from Iran!! One Lt. Cmdr says she saw an Iranian flag, but no flags are visible in the video!! And the threatening message received over the radio "You will explode"...we're not sure it even came from one of the five speedboats...it could have come from another ship, or from a land-based site. This is what I mean by over-reacting...making big assumptions when we don't even have the facts. Just like the bad intel that got us into Iraq.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib7 months, 2 weeks ago
Right, could have been anyone threatening the warships. The fact that the boats were swerving in the path of the warships and dropping devices that required evasive manuevers was coincidental.
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect7 months, 2 weeks ago
Devices? As in explosive devices? How do you know they were? There were no explosions. Not then, nor since then. Show me the proof that whatever was drooped into the water was dangerous to the ships.
As far as the swerving goes, the 5 speedboats were not in the direct path of the ships. Read the article! They were port (to the left, in case you're not nautically knowledgeable). Dropping whatever they dropped into the waters was not in the direct path of the US ships. If you're going to write here, at least try to get the facts straight!
Reply-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
"The boats split into two formations, zoomed around the ships and radioed a threat that U.S. ships would explode. Crew on two of the boats dropped two boxes in the path of the Ingraham."
How about _you_ do some reading before writing here?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01...
Reply-
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
dropped boxes...lol....the IRG has 200 mph Soviet designed torpedos. They showed film of one they got to work several months ago. Iran has one of the best capabilities in the world for taking equipment they've bought and reverse engineering it to make a better version. The idea of IRG dropping boxes in the path of a US warship to attack it is comical. Go look at their order of battle. If you're going to provoke a war with the world's 'sole' superpower with a trigger happy President...you don't 'drop boxes'...lol. If you are studying US doctrine, reaction times, practicing certain tactics, etc....you mess with us. That's the game, all the services of every country do it with all the services of every other country....
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib7 months, 2 weeks ago
Except the Iranians have a track record of actually engaging U.S. warships. Iranian equipment isn't that great in actual performance, although they pride themselves on their attempts to produce weaponry.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
"UnusualSuspect
As far as the swerving goes, the 5 speedboats were not in the direct path of the ships. Read the article!"
Read and research, excellent advice you should try it some time.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05....
Iran's Asymmetric Naval Warfare
By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006
"naval battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988.
The experience taught Iran that large naval vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks, confirmed the efficacy of small boat operations, and spurred interest in missile-armed fast-attack craft".
Like speed boats! If not missiles the boat its self can be a human torpedo, a suicide weapon. Like the attempt to sink USS "The Sullivans" in Yemen
Reply -
0%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
"It also allowed Iran to expand the use of swarming tactics that form the foundation of its current approach to asymmetric naval warfare."
Tactics, swarming, along with area, 12 miles off the Iran coast, and range, how far can speed boats travel with a fule tank of gas, kinda cuts down the list of "UnusualSuspect" to 1 Iran.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
Unusual said: "f you read the latest article, we're not even sure if the speedboats were from Iran!!"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01...
"Iran downplayed the incident. It was settled "after identification of the two parties," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency."
Unusual: "And the threatening message received over the radio "You will explode"...we're not sure it even came from one of the five speedboats...it could have come from another ship, or from a land-based site."
Yeah, it could have come from anywhere. The facts are that it came over an international comms channel at the exact same time as the fast-boats were swarming.
Reply
-
-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
tkyrchncs says this: "By having battleships in the Gulf of Hormuz, maybe? By having troops in Iraq and Afganistan, maybe? By all the current sabre-rattling at Iran, maybe? By torturing captives, maybe? How long a list would you like of how we have over-reacted, and how far back would you like to go?"
umm, I was speaking of overreacting to the actions of the five Iranian fast-boats. As was UnusualSuspect, I believe.
"I think this is hysterical! They wave a red flag at the bull and the bull RUNS AWAY!"
Sure. Hilarious. Odd sense of humor.
Oh, and the only ones who ran were the Iranians when they saw the deck guns being aimed at them.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs7 months, 2 weeks ago
When we stick our nose in where we have no business and someone tweaks it, sure it's funny. If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't really have any sense of humor, or humility either. The Iranians have no warships in our territorial waters (or just outside them). Who is provoking whom here? They don't want a fight with us, but they are fearless, and will not put up with our bullying like lots of others do, and I say good for them. It's not our job to police the Arabian Gulf and we have no need of a Naval presence anywhere in that area beyond what is required to withdraw our land forces.
Reply-
0%
SpazMat7 months, 2 weeks ago
We have every business being in international waters. You might like the mission they were on, or you might not even know it, but the US ships were not acting belligerently, they were not encroaching on other traffic, and they were not making rude noises over the radio and saying anyone's mother was a hamster.
Tell me again why they should not have been in international waters, and what reason the IRG had to harass them?
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs7 months, 2 weeks ago
I did not say that we have no right. I said we have no BUSINESS. I know almost nothing about specific naval missions, and I do know that very occasionally American military forces are sent on peaceful aid and relief missions, but somehow I doubt that to be this group's mission. More likely threat posturing, which we need to CEASE in the Middle East. Along with the actual belligerence.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
aniokly7 months, 2 weeks ago
Wrong. The minute the skipper on the puddle jumper said, "You will be dead in Minutes" That was a hostile act, and we need to expect our Commanders to act accordingly. We should have sunk all of them, and left their people in the water to die. I want Commanders over there to protect my people on board those ships. Think USS Cole. Stop being timid, and kill them. Now they think we are weak, and will be back. Dead they cannot be back.
Reply -
-
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
read the bit above about none having VHF antennas and the cyclical wave form that would have been generated by the engines...greenmac has some great points that challenge your presumptions of guilt.
Reply -
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
vidman...your superman logo is a hoot...I can't tell if you were being funny and ironic and voting against my comment or if you are a case in point...lol.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tchef7 months, 2 weeks ago
Looked more to me like the crews on the speedboats had been drinking that afternoon and decided it would be fun to go "wake jumping" behind those warships.
Reply -
0%
DropkickaLib7 months, 2 weeks ago
We don't have battleships anymore and modern warships aren't armored as they once were. Hence, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen. Small boats packed with explosives are a potential threat if they are allowed to get too close.
Reply-
-
0%
DropkickaLib7 months, 2 weeks ago
We didn't always make ship superstructures out of aluminum like we do now. I've read about simulations and old BBs were much more resiliant than modern warships.
Reply -
-
-
0%
SpazMat7 months, 2 weeks ago
To those who do not know, the armor on tanks is not more than 12 inches thick, but it is angled. The angling makes the path the round travels through the armor much longer:
thickness divided by (cosin of angle of impact).
The angling also makes it more likely for the round to skip off, instead of penetrating, though this is not reliable against APFSDS rounds.
Anyway, I'm reading upward of 24 inch penetration of rolled homogeneous armor. Of course, that 2 inch hole is not going to drastically effect the BB!
Could make them angry, though.
Also, I think the armor on the BB is around the water line, and that descending rounds can penetrate.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib7 months, 2 weeks ago
U.S. tanks have Chobham armor also, which absorbs impacts. Battleships had torpedo blisters and other design features to absorb battle damage.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
Iran's special units don't do anything without specific orders. They won't attack unless they are prepared to be bombed into the stone age. They haven't mobilized for that kind of conflict so they certainly are not going to start such a conflict. You call them silly savages. So far in terms of geopolitical chess they have out played Bush at every turn. They have become a major player in the world, have Putin backing them and putting them under his nuclear umbrella, building reactors for them, vouching for them in the UN and making public statements that the world has to reign in US imperialism. Their influence in the Middle East has sky rocketed since Bush has bumbled around. He's had to go from calling them the "Axis of Evil" to sending diplomats to deal with them. They've made fools of us so far and with our strong dumb men in control they sucker us into every gambit like amateurs.
Reply-
0%
BravoSierra7 months, 2 weeks ago
Think a little bit about what Iran's strategic interest is in how they are playing their hand. The little guy has used our own strengths to elevate himself to the global stage and influence.
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs7 months, 2 weeks ago
And by gosh I admire them for their skill and bravery, even if I abhor their society and government, and they are right about reigning in American imperialism. We should be doing it ourselves by removing most of the present administration to other government facilities out in the country, where the guards point the weapons IN instead of out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
bumbaklotartattack7 months, 2 weeks ago
Yeah, you heard they were still alive? Pretty crazy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/15...
Reply-
0%
TonyByron7 months, 2 weeks ago
And here is an update to the nearly 6 1/2 year old story you link to that came out a week and a half after 9/11.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/9...
Get over your silly conspiracy complex. Pretty crazy indeed.
Reply
-
-
0%
dissent7 months, 2 weeks ago
Oh, the Iranians did that too? I thought those were Saudis, that's why we're hunting Al Qaeda..... for 7 years.
Reply -
0%
SpazMat7 months, 2 weeks ago
Much crazier. You know you are dying on the one mission, committed and psyched (and crazy). This one has that and all the elements of chance thrown in.
Reply
-
-
0%
dissent7 months, 2 weeks ago
I know a few people who say the same thing about Americans who say these things about Muslims.
Reply -
0%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
pagey
"You have to be crazy to take on a couple of battleships with some speed boats"
Crazy to whom? If you intend to die what attack is "crazy"? Were the Kamikaze pilots of WW2 "crazy" in their culture?
"Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare
By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05....
It draws inspiration from Ali (cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammad), who chose to avoid confrontation when challenged by Arab rulers of his time, and waited for twenty-four years before assuming the caliphate, as well as from the devotion of his son Hussein, who faced a superior enemy and died in battle on the plains of Karbala on the tenth day of Muharram in the year 680 (Ashura).
Reply-
0%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
Revolutionary Shiite values such as stoic endurance and devotion to the cause are granted equal, if not superior, status to the traditional military principles of mission accomplishment and the achievement of a military objective. According to this doctrine, the mere act of fighting, exerting maximum effort, and fulfilling one's religious (and national) duty to the fullest is an end in itself. The result or outcome is of secondary importance. For adherents, martyrdom is a welcome prospect.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
AlphaGnosis7 months, 2 weeks ago
""It is a dangerous situation," Bush said during a White House news conference. "They should not have done it, pure and simple. ... I don't know what their thinking was, but I'm telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act."
Reply-
0%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
It is very dangerous times. Very scary and I am glad it worked out,..this time. The Iranians seem to want to start something and make it look like it is the fault of the USA.
Reply-
0%
rdy2rck7 months, 2 weeks ago
This is the facts I've been waiting for. On this I agree with Bush. The Grand Mullah must be as crazy as the nut in North Korea.
It seems we are headed towards a showdown and hope whoever is in the White House knows what to do.Frankly, I can think of options, but none are pretty. Glad it's not my call.
Reply -
0%
BB647 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't think it's that dangerous. We need to recognize Iran for what it really is. It's a group of poorly educated folks trying to run a nation. Outside of the religious people, Iran lost huge levels of intellectuals. They lost huge numbers of college aged men during the Iran/Iraq War. Iran, like North Korea is acting like a spoiled child. When they act bad they want something. What does Iran want, besides power.
Reply-
-
0%
BB647 months, 2 weeks ago
Nice thought but Iran and Iraq have threatened commercial traffic in the past as had radical Islamic factions. Saudi and Kuwait have asked for help in maintaining the sea lanes. Unless the world stops using oil based products be it gas power cars to the plastic on your key boards, we will need to have people there.
Reply
-
-
-
-
