OT: talking of guns and Americans !
Eeyore
out of the water by a US warship yesterday.
The Kenilworth was sailing from Kilcreggan to Gourock when the American
threatened to open fire.
"A departing US naval ship warned, 'Unidentified vessel approaching on
my starboard side, please identify yourself. If you fail to do so, we
will open fire on you with live ammunition.'"
Bloody Americans love their boys' toys don't they ?
Graham
Ron(UK)
Those Clyde boys are pretty tough, I expect they weren't taking any chances
;)
Ron(UK)
Richard Edmondson
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453DF8D2...@hotmail.com...
I think you might have missed an important detail:
"The incident happened at 9.40am on the first day of a massive international
training exercise - Operation Neptune Warrior - off the west coast of
Scotland.
The first phase involved ships and submarines fighting off simulated
terrorist attacks by small boats and jetskis manned by Royal Marines.
But unknown to the US crew, the Kenilworth, owned by Clyde Marine Services,
was also in the vicinity."
I believe that it's reasonable to assume that they thought he was part of
the training exercise.
Gareth Magennis
"Richard Edmondson" <edmo...@skyNOSPAMbest.com> wrote in message
news:ehl0j7$fs1$1...@news04.infoave.net...
Seems to me that a major point of the excersise should be learning to
identify possible attackers and particularly to identify non threatening
vessels like this ferry. If the might of the US Navy is unable to identify
a well known ferry that uses these waters all the time as friendly, then
something is severely lacking. But hey, in wartime you shoot first and ask
questions later, as all the victims of "friendly" fire will testify. Its
just what those good old boys do when they get a little excited. Ah bless.
Gareth.
Phildo
Eeyore
Richard Edmondson wrote:
So why was he hailed on an international maritime distress frequency ? Anything to so with the training exercose should have been on military
frequencies.
Are American sailors blind as well as stupid ?
See USS Vincennes.
Graham
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an F-16 !
Good ol boys indeed. I see the USN doesn't learn from its mistakes.
Graham
Richard Edmondson
"Gareth Magennis" <sound....@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:joidnVv9n9V...@bt.com...
Yeah, It'd be nice if Al Qeada, et al would use flags or uniforms or
something to identify them with. Maybe they could radio ahead: "Hey, we're
coming to bomb you now. Get ready" or something.
The reality is that you can only tell who the bad guys are *after* the
explosion.
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html
I appears to me that the major point of the exercise is that you *can not*
easily identify them and you can't be too careful. What would *really* be
nice is if we didn't have to worry about this kind of crap at all.
Phildo
> USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an F-16 !
TWA flight 800.
Phildo
Eeyore
Richard Edmondson wrote:
> "Gareth Magennis" <sound....@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>
> > Seems to me that a major point of the excersise should be learning to
> > identify possible attackers and particularly to identify non threatening
> > vessels like this ferry. If the might of the US Navy is unable to
> > identify a well known ferry that uses these waters all the time as
> > friendly, then something is severely lacking. But hey, in wartime you
> > shoot first and ask questions later, as all the victims of "friendly" fire
> > will testify. Its just what those good old boys do when they get a little
> > excited. Ah bless.
> >
>
> Yeah, It'd be nice if Al Qeada, et al would use flags or uniforms or
> something to identify them with.
You reckon they're going to commandeer the entire Clyde ferry fleet to invade Glasgow ?
> The reality is that you can only tell who the bad guys are *after* the
> explosion.
>
> http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html
>
> I appears to me that the major point of the exercise is that you *can not*
> easily identify them and you can't be too careful.
A Clyde steamer ?
> What would *really* be
> nice is if we didn't have to worry about this kind of crap at all.
What would be really nice is if we didn't have to worry about Americans routinely behaving like ignorant dickheads and wanting to shoot everything and
everone up.
Graham
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an F-16 !
>
> TWA flight 800.
You fell for that one too ?
Not that I wouldn't have put it past the bounds of possibility though.
Graham
Phildo
It was the fact there were navy missile trials going on in that area at the
time, the radar clearly shows a small object travelling at high speed
towards the flight and the query from the US navy plane asking if it should
go help with the "accident" just seconds after the plane blew up that
convinced me.
Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest of
the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they "bounced"
there !!!
Phildo
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Phildo wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an F-16 !
> >>
> >> TWA flight 800.
> >
> > You fell for that one too ?
> >
> > Not that I wouldn't have put it past the bounds of possibility though.
>
> It was the fact there were navy missile trials going on in that area at the
> time, the radar clearly shows a small object travelling at high speed
> towards the flight
Cite ?
> and the query from the US navy plane asking if it should
> go help with the "accident" just seconds after the plane blew up that
> convinced me.
Cite ?
> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest of
> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they "bounced"
> there !!!
Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to aerodynamic forces.
Most of this supposed 'evidence' is simply misinformed rumour. The rest is just
imaginative fiction and simple lies.
Graham
Phildo
>
>
> Phildo wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Phildo wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an F-16
>> >> > !
>> >>
>> >> TWA flight 800.
>> >
>> > You fell for that one too ?
>> >
>> > Not that I wouldn't have put it past the bounds of possibility though.
>>
>> It was the fact there were navy missile trials going on in that area at
>> the
>> time, the radar clearly shows a small object travelling at high speed
>> towards the flight
>
> Cite ?
Paris Match magazine which printed the radar images of the time.
>> and the query from the US navy plane asking if it should
>> go help with the "accident" just seconds after the plane blew up that
>> convinced me.
>
> Cite ?
Too long ago for me to still remember it.
>> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
>> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest of
>> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they "bounced"
>> there !!!
>
> Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to aerodynamic
> forces.
The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines don't
"bounce" several miles away.
> Most of this supposed 'evidence' is simply misinformed rumour. The rest is
> just
> imaginative fiction and simple lies.
Or rather facts you simply do not want to believe.
Phildo
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Phildo wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > Phildo wrote:
> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> > USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an F-16
> >> >> > !
> >> >>
> >> >> TWA flight 800.
> >> >
> >> > You fell for that one too ?
> >> >
> >> > Not that I wouldn't have put it past the bounds of possibility though.
> >>
> >> It was the fact there were navy missile trials going on in that area at
> >> the
> >> time, the radar clearly shows a small object travelling at high speed
> >> towards the flight
> >
> > Cite ?
>
> Paris Match magazine which printed the radar images of the time.
Is that meant to be taken seriously ?
> >> and the query from the US navy plane asking if it should
> >> go help with the "accident" just seconds after the plane blew up that
> >> convinced me.
> >
> > Cite ?
>
> Too long ago for me to still remember it.
>
> >> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
> >> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest of
> >> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they "bounced"
> >> there !!!
> >
> > Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to aerodynamic
> > forces.
>
> The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines don't
> "bounce" several miles away.
They do break in flight off though as a result of aerodynamic stresses if the
aircraft is overspeed. Indeed the entire fuselage can break up
The engines of AA 587 ended up far from the aircraft yet it was doing < 250 kts
at a relatively low altitude.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/default.htm
> > Most of this supposed 'evidence' is simply misinformed rumour. The rest is
> > just
> > imaginative fiction and simple lies.
>
> Or rather facts you simply do not want to believe.
I know far more about this than you can likely even ever hope to.
All these ideas you think are odd and proof of conspiracies are simply on
account of kooks' failure to understand aircraft crashes. There was nothing odd
about any of them.
Graham
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
> >> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest of
> >> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they "bounced"
> >> there !!!
> >
> > Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to aerodynamic
> > forces.
>
> The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines don't
> "bounce" several miles away.
>
> > Most of this supposed 'evidence' is simply misinformed rumour. The rest is
> > just imaginative fiction and simple lies.
>
> Or rather facts you simply do not want to believe.
The conspiracy loons don't need facts. They invent what they want to believe.
" Many of the conspiracy theories concerning FLT 93 surround the parts strewn in
places where some theorists claim they should not be. Most of them start with
the absurd notion that the plane hit exactly straight nose-down.
An analysis of the crater itself shows that this is not the case.
All commercial aircraft wings are turned slightly upward. Thus, on impact with a
surface which they can penetrate, they will form a relatively flat "V" shaped
mark. Such is seen at the Shanksville site.
A plane entering straight in would produce a crater with uniform margins all
around. Such is NOT the case at Shanksville. Dirt is piled up along one side of
the crater made by the fuselage and wings. This indicates that the plane was
forced UNDER that dirt and rock. That it is piled up at the BOTTOM of the "V"
indicates that the bottom of the "V" indicates the direction of travel. This
would, of course, also imply that the top of the "V" indicates the direction
from which the plane entered the crater. Also, considering the dihedral, the
-up-slope of the wing, this would indicate that the plane was up-side down. This
is further supported by the fact that there is a tail imprint in the ground with
no wreckage visible. This mark is above the top of the "V". Thus, the tail was
moving toward the piles-up dirt, and became buried in the crater. The only way
that this could ever, possibly occur is that the aircraft was up-side down, and
coming in at a 45 degree angle, or something close to it.
Aircraft engines are attached in such a way that they separate easily in a
flight accident. This is what happened, throwing at least one engine further
down the path along which the aircraft had been travelling.
It's that simple. The hole was made by a 757 or similar LARGE freaking aircraft.
"
Yet the kook attempts to dismiss an intelligent post thus.....
" who analyzed? you? where are your sources? " As if that made his post invalid
!
Graham
Saxology
<snip>
>
> So why was he hailed on an international maritime distress frequency ?
> Anything to so with the training exercose should have been on military
> frequencies.
>
> Are American sailors blind as well as stupid ?
>
> See USS Vincennes.
>
> Graham
>
>
You have got to be one dumb turd. You would have the "unknown" hailed on
only a US military frequency? Then, if they didn't respond, shoot 'em?
What a moron. I am sure they hailed on many frequencies, acording to a
procedure. And, that procedure worked. The "unknown" received the message
and acted accordingly. So, your method is simply wrong and the one used
worked properly. Why the ferry was sailing toward a warship would be the
question to ask... well, ask everyone else.... you are stupid to understand
much.
-Sax
Eeyore
Saxology wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > So why was he hailed on an international maritime distress frequency ?
> > Anything to so with the training exercose should have been on military
> > frequencies.
> >
> > Are American sailors blind as well as stupid ?
> >
> > See USS Vincennes.
> >
> > Graham
>
> You have got to be one dumb turd. You would have the "unknown" hailed on
> only a US military frequency? Then, if they didn't respond, shoot 'em?
> What a moron. I am sure they hailed on many frequencies, acording to a
> procedure. And, that procedure worked. The "unknown" received the message
> and acted accordingly. So, your method is simply wrong and the one used
> worked properly. Why the ferry was sailing toward a warship would be the
> question to ask... well, ask everyone else.... you are stupid to understand
> much.
Why is a USN ship threatening to fire on a British ship in British waters ?
You may think that's ok elsewhere but we won't stand for it.
Your last ally is seriously pissed off.
Graham
Eeyore
Saxology wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> > So why was he hailed on an international maritime distress frequency ?
> > Anything to so with the training exercose should have been on military
> > frequencies.
> >
> > Are American sailors blind as well as stupid ?
> >
> > See USS Vincennes.
> >
> > Graham
>
> You have got to be one dumb turd. You would have the "unknown" hailed on
> only a US military frequency? Then, if they didn't respond, shoot 'em?
> What a moron. I am sure they hailed on many frequencies, acording to a
> procedure. And, that procedure worked. The "unknown" received the message
> and acted accordingly. So, your method is simply wrong and the one used
> worked properly. Why the ferry was sailing toward a warship would be the
> question to ask... well, ask everyone else.... you are stupid to understand
> much.
Why the fuck was a USN warship threatening British shipping in British shipping
lanes ?
Go fight your own wars in future.
Graham
Phildo
"Saxology" <saxolo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mXx%g.14610$Y24....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>Why the ferry was sailing toward a warship would be the question to ask...
It's a ferry. It follows the same route day in, day out, from one side of
the river to the other.
Phildo
Phildo
>
>
> Phildo wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Phildo wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > Phildo wrote:
>> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an
>> >> >> > F-16
>> >> >> > !
>> >> >>
>> >> >> TWA flight 800.
>> >> >
>> >> > You fell for that one too ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Not that I wouldn't have put it past the bounds of possibility
>> >> > though.
>> >>
>> >> It was the fact there were navy missile trials going on in that area
>> >> at
>> >> the
>> >> time, the radar clearly shows a small object travelling at high speed
>> >> towards the flight
>> >
>> > Cite ?
>>
>> Paris Match magazine which printed the radar images of the time.
>
> Is that meant to be taken seriously ?
The radar tapes were online for a while and you could see it very clearly.
>> >> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
>> >> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest
>> >> of
>> >> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they
>> >> "bounced"
>> >> there !!!
>> >
>> > Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to aerodynamic
>> > forces.
>>
>> The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines don't
>> "bounce" several miles away.
>
> They do break in flight off though as a result of aerodynamic stresses if
> the
> aircraft is overspeed. Indeed the entire fuselage can break up
>
> The engines of AA 587 ended up far from the aircraft yet it was doing <
> 250 kts
> at a relatively low altitude.
But according to the local seismic survery the engines hit the ground BEFORE
the fuselage. Kinda hard to do when they have bounced off after the plane
hit the ground.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/default.htm
Don't believe anything with a .gov address.
This is my last post on the matter. Is way too OT for AAPLS.
Phildo
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Saxology" <saxolo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >Why the ferry was sailing toward a warship would be the question to ask...
>
> It's a ferry. It follows the same route day in, day out, from one side of
> the river to the other.
The more appropriate question was why was a USN warship threatening it !
Graham
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Phildo wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > Phildo wrote:
> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > Phildo wrote:
> >> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > USS Vincennes. Shot down a civilian Airbus mistaking it for an
> >> >> >> > F-16 !
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> TWA flight 800.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You fell for that one too ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not that I wouldn't have put it past the bounds of possibility
> >> >> > though.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was the fact there were navy missile trials going on in that area
> >> >> at the time, the radar clearly shows a small object travelling at
> >> >> high speed towards the flight
> >> >
> >> > Cite ?
> >>
> >> Paris Match magazine which printed the radar images of the time.
> >
> > Is that meant to be taken seriously ?
>
> The radar tapes were online for a while and you could see it very clearly.
Tapes ?
Online ?
> >> >> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet was
> >> >> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the rest
> >> >> of
> >> >> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they
> >> >> "bounced"
> >> >> there !!!
> >> >
> >> > Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to aerodynamic
> >> > forces.
> >>
> >> The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines don't
> >> "bounce" several miles away.
> >
> > They do break in flight off though as a result of aerodynamic stresses if
> > the aircraft is overspeed. Indeed the entire fuselage can break up
> >
> > The engines of AA 587 ended up far from the aircraft yet it was doing <
> > 250 kts at a relatively low altitude.
>
> But according to the local seismic survery the engines hit the ground BEFORE
> the fuselage. Kinda hard to do when they have bounced off after the plane
> hit the ground.
Bounced ? Who said bounced ?
They'd have detached mid-air under aerodynamic stresses and fallen to the ground
faster because they don't have wings you idiot !
Entirely predictable but apparenly beyond the intellectual capacity of kooks to
understand.
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/default.htm
>
> Don't believe anything with a .gov address.
>
> This is my last post on the matter. Is way too OT for AAPLS.
You're quite nuts about this.
Graham
Phildo
>> >> >> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away from the
>> >> >> rest
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they
>> >> >> "bounced"
>> >> >> there !!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to
>> >> > aerodynamic
>> >> > forces.
>> >>
>> >> The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines
>> >> don't
>> >> "bounce" several miles away.
>> >
>> > They do break in flight off though as a result of aerodynamic stresses
>> > if
>> > the aircraft is overspeed. Indeed the entire fuselage can break up
>> >
>> > The engines of AA 587 ended up far from the aircraft yet it was doing <
>> > 250 kts at a relatively low altitude.
>>
>> But according to the local seismic survery the engines hit the ground
>> BEFORE
>> the fuselage. Kinda hard to do when they have bounced off after the plane
>> hit the ground.
>
> Bounced ? Who said bounced ?
The US government when trying to explain it away.
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=flightUA93&refpage=issues
Oh, and it's flight 93 not AA587. At least get your air crashes right.
Now let's keep this off AAPLS and in the proper newsgroups.
Phildo
AustinMN
> Richard Edmondson wrote:
>
> > "Gareth Magennis" <sound....@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Seems to me that a major point of the excersise should be learning to
> > > identify possible attackers and particularly to identify non threatening
> > > vessels like this ferry. If the might of the US Navy is unable to
> > > identify a well known ferry that uses these waters all the time as
> > > friendly, then something is severely lacking. But hey, in wartime you
> > > shoot first and ask questions later, as all the victims of "friendly" fire
> > > will testify. Its just what those good old boys do when they get a little
> > > excited. Ah bless.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, It'd be nice if Al Qeada, et al would use flags or uniforms or
> > something to identify them with.
>
> You reckon they're going to commandeer the entire Clyde ferry fleet to invade Glasgow ?
Might be easier than comandeering four airliners.
>
>
> > The reality is that you can only tell who the bad guys are *after* the
> > explosion.
> >
> > http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html
> >
> > I appears to me that the major point of the exercise is that you *can not*
> > easily identify them and you can't be too careful.
>
> A Clyde steamer ?
Use an airliner for a guided missile? Preposterous! BTW, the steamer
can be loaded with a lot more stuff.
> > What would *really* be
> > nice is if we didn't have to worry about this kind of crap at all.
>
> What would be really nice is if we didn't have to worry about Americans routinely behaving like ignorant dickheads and wanting to shoot everything and
> everone up.
We don't know how this incident will be handled behind the scenes. The
captain may have already been torn a new one.
Austin
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> Come on, look at the supposed "let's roll" incident where the jet
> >> >> >> was clearly shot down. The engines landed several miles away
> >> >> >> from the rest of
> >> >> >> the place and the US government are trying to tell us that they
> >> >> >> "bounced" there !!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not unusual if you understood how aircraft break up down to
> >> >> > aerodynamic forces.
> >> >>
> >> >> The plane was supposed to have been flown in to the ground. Engines
> >> >> don't "bounce" several miles away.
> >> >
> >> > They do break in flight off though as a result of aerodynamic stresses
> >> > if the aircraft is overspeed. Indeed the entire fuselage can break up
> >> >
> >> > The engines of AA 587 ended up far from the aircraft yet it was doing <
> >> > 250 kts at a relatively low altitude.
> >>
> >> But according to the local seismic survery the engines hit the ground
> >> BEFORE
> >> the fuselage. Kinda hard to do when they have bounced off after the plane
> >> hit the ground.
> >
> > Bounced ? Who said bounced ?
>
> The US government when trying to explain it away.
>
> http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=flightUA93&refpage=issues
That's a kook site. The US govt said no such thing. The NTSB would be laughed at if it
said anything like that. Another case of the kooks simply making stuff up.
> Oh, and it's flight 93 not AA587. At least get your air crashes right.
I know what flight it is.
I mentioned AA587 for comparison since its engines also separated and no-one said they
bounced either !
> Now let's keep this off AAPLS and in the proper newsgroups.
alt.kooks ?
Graham
Ron(UK)
If the Americans think Al Kieda are scarey wait till they upset the
Glaswegians!
Ron(UK)
Gareth Magennis
"AustinMN" <tacoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161784321.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
The whole point is that "friendly fire", "colatteral damage", or however
else you want to sanitise or excuse the killing of your own or your allies'
soldiers or plain old unimportant civilians, is a MAJOR fucking problem.
The Pentagon puts the number of US soldiers killed in the Gulf war due to
friendly fire at 23% - you can bet this is a very conservative estimate.
Those A10 tank busters were rather good at taking out British tanks as well.
Quite how you confuse a British tank with an Iraqi one is not very clear
given the number of unambiguous ways this can be verified. Or an airliner
for that matter. Or a Clyde steamer. Or the guy who polled more votes at
an election.
Gareth.
AustinMN
Probably never changes the channel on the radio either. Same
frequency, day in, day out - easy to find.
As much as I would like to defend our Navy, this made the papers
because it was a very stupid blunder that could have been much worse.
Austin
Eeyore
Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "AustinMN" <tacoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
The fact that US pilots take speed before combat flight may have something to do
with this btw.
Graham
Chris Darkfire
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The fact that US pilots take speed before combat flight may have something to do
>with this btw.
Not the only ones
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6083840.stm
C
Eeyore
Chris Darkfire wrote:
" It had not yet been approved for use by British soldiers ". It's effects aren't
quite like ephedrine it seems though.
The RAF take a very dim view of the idea btw.
Graham
Phildo
Again, check out http://www.tunepix.com/movies/1528.wmv.
Sadly this rings very true and is entirely possible.
Phildo
Phildo
> The whole point is that "friendly fire", "colatteral damage", or however
> else you want to sanitise or excuse the killing of your own or your
> allies' soldiers or plain old unimportant civilians, is a MAJOR fucking
> problem. The Pentagon puts the number of US soldiers killed in the Gulf
> war due to friendly fire at 23% - you can bet this is a very conservative
> estimate.
More British soldiers were killed by Americans than Iraqis in the first gulf
war (Kuwait).
Phildo
Glenn Dowdy
"Ron(UK)" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:RKKdnTCE2KKv6KLY...@bt.com...
>
> If the Americans think Al Kieda are scarey wait till they upset the
> Glaswegians!
>
If we thought Arabic was tough to understand, wait until the military hears
the Glaswegians.
Glenn D.
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
> THE skipper of a tiny Clyde ferry feared his boat was going to be blown
> out of the water by a US warship yesterday.
>
> The Kenilworth was sailing from Kilcreggan to Gourock when the American
> threatened to open fire.
>
> "A departing US naval ship warned, 'Unidentified vessel approaching on
> my starboard side, please identify yourself. If you fail to do so, we
> will open fire on you with live ammunition.'"
>
> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=us-navy-declare-war-on-clyde-ferry%26method=full%26objectid=17980625%26siteid=66633-name_page.html
>
> Bloody Americans love their boys' toys don't they ?
>
>
> Graham
Perhaps you would be jolly good enough to inform the group as to the UK
vessel navigational rules concerning the approach of naval vessels. As
a boat owner and operator in the good ole USA I can attest that it is
strictly prohibited, and damned stupid as well, to approach a naval
vessel. Naval vessels have the right of way in every instance, no
exceptions.
Rodney
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
>
> So why was he hailed on an international maritime distress frequency ? Anything to so with the training exercose should have been on military
> frequencies.
>
> Are American sailors blind as well as stupid ?
>
> See USS Vincennes.
>
> Graham
He was hailed on VHF channel 16 because it is the maritime hailing
channel. Helps to know the rules.
Rodney
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
>
> What would be really nice is if we didn't have to worry about Americans routinely behaving like ignorant dickheads and wanting to shoot everything and
> everone up.
>
> Graham
Perhaps if your ferry captains were better trained and educated...
Bottom line, no vessel should ever approach any naval vessel under any
circumstance unless given permission or requested to do so.
Rodney
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
> Why the fuck was a USN warship threatening British shipping in British shipping
> lanes ?
>
> Go fight your own wars in future.
>
> Graham
Get out of NATO and you won't have any worries with US naval vessels in
your waters.
Rodney
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
How exactly is a ferry supposed to know in advance about a US destroyer appearing out of the blue ?
It was *your warship* that approached the ferry following its well-established couse.
Your arrogance is very telling. These also aren't US waters.
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
The USN isn't allowed to bully legitimate UK shipping. If that's what you want I'd be all for asking your lot to leave the many British bases you
use.
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
US law doesn't apply here.
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
I'd rather see the USA leave NATO.
Graham
Rodney
It's got nothing to do with US law.
Rodney
Tim Scott
Yup, just a little bit of local knowledge may have come in useful to the USA
vessel. am sure that the local ferry and its route and times are well known
and advertised, and very arrogant of the US crew to assume it wanted
anything to do with them. There certainly doesn't seem to been good
planning for the "massive international training exercise" to forget about
checking what other vessels have an established use of said waters.
The USA ship was on an excersize, involving possible/simulated attacks from
smaller vessels like the ferry, and I guess the USA crew assumed the ferry
was part of their excersize, but still went ahead and broadcast on channel
16, instad of a channel they should have used for the excersize.
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
>
> How exactly is a ferry supposed to know in advance about a US destroyer appearing out of the blue ?
>
> It was *your warship* that approached the ferry following its well-established couse.
>
> Your arrogance is very telling. These also aren't US waters.
>
> Graham
You have to be pretty damned stupid not to be able to recognize a naval
vessel.
Rodney
Rodney
That's the first point you have made on which we agree.
Rodney
Rodney
I can assume from your comments that you don't spend much time on the
water.
Rodney
Rodney
Tim Scott wrote:
> Yup, just a little bit of local knowledge may have come in useful to the USA
> vessel. am sure that the local ferry and its route and times are well known
> and advertised, and very arrogant of the US crew to assume it wanted
> anything to do with them. There certainly doesn't seem to been good
> planning for the "massive international training exercise" to forget about
> checking what other vessels have an established use of said waters.
>
> The USA ship was on an excersize, involving possible/simulated attacks from
> smaller vessels like the ferry, and I guess the USA crew assumed the ferry
> was part of their excersize, but still went ahead and broadcast on channel
> 16, instad of a channel they should have used for the excersize.
It makes no difference how often the ferry uses that passage, the navy
rules the sea. They are always the stand-on vessel unless they choose
to give way. It makes no difference what flag they fly.
Rodney
Tim Scott
"Rodney" <wha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1162044563.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You have to be even more stopid not to recognise a small local ferry service
going about its everyday business - just a small bit of research and
briefing would have resulted in th US crew knowing there was a local ferry
and to expect it be there.
Rodney
A naval vessel is not obliged to give way to any other vessel. As a
vessel operator I know to give way to any naval vessel. I don't give a
shit whether they are US flagged, UK, or any damned body.
>From the reports I have seen all of the shipping in the area was
informed of the exercise. Regardless of whether the ship was calling
the ferry or they were calling another vessel and used the wrong
channel, there are proper protocols to follow between vessels. The
ferry was never in any danger and the captain of the vessel should not
have been shaken over the incident.
This is just another case of journalistic sensationalism and a public
that falls for it.
I would agree with one thing, however. I wish you in the UK could
prevail on your leaders to kick the US military out of your country. I
am sick and damned tired of paying taxes to support military operations
in Europe and the UK. We should get out of there and do it now.
Rodney
Eeyore
Tim Scott wrote:
> am sure that the local ferry and its route and times are well known
> and advertised, and very arrogant of the US crew to assume it wanted
> anything to do with them.
http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=224500&y=679500&z=3&sv=224500,679500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=223500&ay=680500
http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=224500&y=679500&z=5&sv=224500,679500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=223500&ay=680500
http://www.calmac.co.uk/winter-kilcreggan-timetable.html
That took a couple of minutes !
Now since that route runs *directly across* the Firth of Clyde and can't be skirted, you'd think that the Captain of a naval vessel should have been on
the lookout for ferries !
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
And a competent USN vessel would have to be bloody damn stupid not to recognise a ferry on a marked route
with a published timeatable.
Especially when that route directly crosses its intended course !
http://www.calmac.co.uk/winter-kilcreggan-timetable.html
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
Not on the sea for sure. This isn't a war zone btw ! Please direct me to a link showing that British ferry captains have to give way to USN ships.
Does the USN also run down sailing ships btw ?
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
I rather believe the RN doesn't behave like that.
Graham
Eeyore
Tim Scott wrote:
> "Rodney" <wha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >> How exactly is a ferry supposed to know in advance about a US destroyer
> >> appearing out of the blue ?
> >>
> >> It was *your warship* that approached the ferry following its
> >> well-established couse.
> >>
> >> Your arrogance is very telling. These also aren't US waters.
> >>
> >> Graham
> >
> > You have to be pretty damned stupid not to be able to recognize a naval
> > vessel.
>
> You have to be even more stopid not to recognise a small local ferry service
> going about its everyday business - just a small bit of research and
> briefing would have resulted in th US crew knowing there was a local ferry
> and to expect it be there.
The ferry route is clearly marked and it directly crosses that USN destroyer's
planned course.
What kind of imcompetent Navy Captain would have not checked it out ?
http://www.calmac.co.uk/winter-kilcreggan-timetable.html
http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=224500&y=679500&z=3&sv=224500,679500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=223500&ay=680500
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
> Tim Scott wrote:
>
> > You have to be even more stopid not to recognise a small local ferry service
> > going about its everyday business - just a small bit of research and
> > briefing would have resulted in th US crew knowing there was a local ferry
> > and to expect it be there.
>
> A naval vessel is not obliged to give way to any other vessel.
Typical Yank arrogance.
This is why you're so loathed all around the world.
The RN doesn't behave like that.
Graham
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
>
> And a competent USN vessel would have to be bloody damn stupid not to recognise a ferry on a marked route
> with a published timeatable.
>
> Especially when that route directly crosses its intended course !
>
> http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=224500&y=679500&z=5&sv=224500,679500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=223500&ay=680500
>
> http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=224500&y=679500&z=5&sv=224500,679500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=223500&ay=680500
>
> http://www.calmac.co.uk/winter-kilcreggan-timetable.html
>
> Graham
Since I work on a military base I would love to watch the conversation
between you and our garrison commander about security. I agree with
you, if it's marked on a map and a regular route it must be safe.
Rodney
You are a complete idiot. I never said anything about the US navy or
RN. I said naval vessels. It does not make a shitting bit of
difference whose flag they fly you moron.
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
The USN expects to be attacked in UK waters ? In the Firth of Clyde in fact ?
You guys are even more paranoid than I thought.
The USA has totally lost the plot. How do you feel about Habeas Corpus being withdrawn ?
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
The RN assuredly doesn't behave as arrogantly as that.
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
Let me see.
Looking at the map and the timetable I can see that the ferry does ~ 6 knots.
You think a USN destroyer is living in the real world when it asks a ferry to give it
1000 yds clearance in a channel only 2300 yards across when the ferry's only capable
of 1/5th of the destroyer's speed ?
Graham
Rodney
The military makes policy and procedure based on worst-case
possibilities. It's not an issue of paranoia, it's a case of better
safe than sorry. I am forced to weave my 3/4 ton truck through a maze
of concrete barricades every morning on my way to work because of it.
I have to badge into every building I go into instead of just opening
the door. It's inconvinenient, but that's just the way it is. We live
in a world where the actions of a few nuts make it hard on everyone
else.
liquidator
"Tim Scott" <timsc...@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote in message
news:4qh9pgF...@individual.net...
True- but since I'm sure this was coordinated with the RN. The RN should
have given a local schedule to the ship.
Had a RN ship been in our waters I think the captain would expect to be
supplied with such.
I suspect bad planning all the way round is what started the whole thing.
I did get a laugh out of someone posting that the big ship appeared out of
the blue. Big warships don't move that fast.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rodney
If you are the captain of a vessel intersecting a military vessel you
gotta do what you gotta do. Again, military vessels own the water
followed by commercial followed by recreational vessels. There is a
definite hierarchy on the water. The captain was obligated to identify
himself an describe any maneuvering handicaps he might have. As long
as he followed the directions given he was in no danger at all.
I also apologize for calling you an idiot. I spend a lot of time on
the water and this is just a no-brainer for me. It is much akin to a
police car yielding right-of-way to a taxi. It just does not work that
way.
Rodney
liquidator wrote:
> True- but since I'm sure this was coordinated with the RN. The RN should
> have given a local schedule to the ship.
>
> Had a RN ship been in our waters I think the captain would expect to be
> supplied with such.
>
> I suspect bad planning all the way round is what started the whole thing.
>
>
> I did get a laugh out of someone posting that the big ship appeared out of
> the blue. Big warships don't move that fast.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
I agree, there was fault all around.
Eeyore
liquidator wrote:
> "Tim Scott" <timsc...@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote in message
> > "Rodney" <wha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > >
> > >> How exactly is a ferry supposed to know in advance about a US destroyer
> > >> appearing out of the blue ?
> > >>
> > >> It was *your warship* that approached the ferry following its
> > >> well-established couse.
> > >>
> > >> Your arrogance is very telling. These also aren't US waters.
> > >>
> > >> Graham
> > >
> > > You have to be pretty damned stupid not to be able to recognize a naval
> > > vessel.
> >
> > You have to be even more stopid not to recognise a small local ferry
> > service going about its everyday business - just a small bit of research and
>
> > briefing would have resulted in th US crew knowing there was a local ferry
> > and to expect it be there.
>
> True- but since I'm sure this was coordinated with the RN. The RN should
> have given a local schedule to the ship.
>
> Had a RN ship been in our waters I think the captain would expect to be
> supplied with such.
>
> I suspect bad planning all the way round is what started the whole thing.
>
> I did get a laugh out of someone posting that the big ship appeared out of
> the blue. Big warships don't move that fast.
I meant that as in unexpectedly.
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
So what about threatening to shell him ?
> I also apologize for calling you an idiot. I spend a lot of time on
> the water and this is just a no-brainer for me. It is much akin to a
> police car yielding right-of-way to a taxi. It just does not work that
> way.
I'm sure a police car wouldn't yield to a taxi if it was on an emergency call but why not
otherwise ?
Graham
Rodney
>
> I'm sure a police car wouldn't yield to a taxi if it was on an emergency call but why not
> otherwise ?
>
> Graham
They probably would, but they were on an exercise. The soldiers and
sailers are given very little wiggle room. They just do as instructed.
I'm sure the ferry was running radar as was the naval vessel.
Sometimes when someone sees a blip on the radar they do not attempt to
make visual identification, they just manuver to avoid collision. The
problem with military vessels is they have a halo and when you violate
that space they call you on it. I'm sure the ferry captain knew the
vessels were there, but did not realize who or what they were. I'll be
the first to admit I do the same thing. If I see a radar signature I
do not always make a big effort to visually identify it I just manuver
to miss it. It is, however, a rather lazy practice.
Rodney
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
Bear in mind that naval traffic is no stranger to this area and I'm sure the ferry captain
would be familiar with maoevering to avoid them. I'm sure RN warships don't require 1000 yds
clearance and you might care to consider how that could even be acheived in a channel 2300 yds
wide !
Here's a pic btw of the route in question. The town opposite is the other end of the route.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clyde_shipping.jpg
Here's the poor little ferry in question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Kenilworth
Note.... " On 23 October 2006 a US Navy warship taking part in the Neptune Warrior training
exercise warned the Keniloworth to get out of the way or be blown out of the water. The depute
commander of the training exercise phoned Clyde Marine to apologise.[1] "
Here's another news article about the incident.......
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061024-040934-2253r
" The unidentified U.S. warship was leaving the Royal Navy Faslane naval base on the Clyde when
it mistakenly broadcast the warning on VHF Channel 16, the international calling and distress
frequency, instead of on an exercise frequency.
The MV Kenilworth skipper received a radio call warning "unidentified vessel approaching on my
starboard side, please identify yourself. If you fail to do so, we will open fire on you with
live ammunition."
A British Ministry of Defense spokesman said: "The communication was overheard by other
vessels. The challenge was directed to other ships in the exercise and there was no threat to
anybody. The ferry was in no danger."
NATO officials are investigating, and have warned exercise participants to avoid a recurrence
of the incident. "
Graham
liquidator
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45438A9E...@hotmail.com...
Ah. A problen on usenet is you see the text not the person's body language.
So misunderstandings are common.
I just think that if a Brit ship was conducting exercises in a US prt, we'd
supply him with a local shipping schedule so he'd be on the watch. That
would have prevented this whole thing.
Better planning. But the militery term SNAFU- situation normal, all fucked
up, applies.
liquidator
Makes a lot of sense, that explanation. So there actually wasn't a threat
made, just perceived.
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
-snip-
> " The unidentified U.S. warship was leaving the Royal Navy Faslane naval base on the Clyde when
> it mistakenly broadcast the warning on VHF Channel 16, the international calling and distress
> frequency, instead of on an exercise frequency.
>
> The MV Kenilworth skipper received a radio call warning "unidentified vessel approaching on my
> starboard side, please identify yourself. If you fail to do so, we will open fire on you with
> live ammunition."
>
> A British Ministry of Defense spokesman said: "The communication was overheard by other
> vessels. The challenge was directed to other ships in the exercise and there was no threat to
> anybody. The ferry was in no danger."
>
> NATO officials are investigating, and have warned exercise participants to avoid a recurrence
> of the incident. "
>
> Graham
Bottom line, the naval vessel issued a standard warning to an
approaching vessel to identify themselves. If it was directed at the
ferry all they had to do was comply. If it was directed at another
exercise participant then someone grabbed the wrong microphone and the
ferry heard something not intended for them. Still, all they had to do
was contact the war ship and identify themselves. Vessels routinely
use multiple radios tuned to different channels so they can hear
traffic on more then one channel at once. I sometimes use 2 radios
because it is mandatory to monitor 16, but commercial traffic where I
boat uses channel 14 so I like to monitor both.
This whole thing is a tempest in a tea cup. It was blown up in the
headlines to sell papers.
That said, I am a strong proponent for the US to pull ALL forces out of
Europe and the UK. I don't like my money going to support it. I don't
want to be there, you do not want us there. We are united in a common
cause. I hope I see it come to pass one day.
Rodney
Eeyore
liquidator wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > NATO officials are investigating, and have warned exercise participants to
> > avoid a recurrence of the incident. "
> >
> > Graham
>
> Makes a lot of sense, that explanation. So there actually wasn't a threat
> made, just perceived.
Not quite.
The threat was indeed made and broadcast on a maritime distress frequency *by
mistake* and the ferry assumed it was the vessel being referred to since it was
close by.
The message was intended as a part of the exercise and should have been
broadcast on a military frequency.
Someone in the USN should be blushing deeply.
Graham
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > " The unidentified U.S. warship was leaving the Royal Navy Faslane naval base on the Clyde when
> > it mistakenly broadcast the warning on VHF Channel 16, the international calling and distress
> > frequency, instead of on an exercise frequency.
> >
> > The MV Kenilworth skipper received a radio call warning "unidentified vessel approaching on my
> > starboard side, please identify yourself. If you fail to do so, we will open fire on you with
> > live ammunition."
> >
> > A British Ministry of Defense spokesman said: "The communication was overheard by other
> > vessels. The challenge was directed to other ships in the exercise and there was no threat to
> > anybody. The ferry was in no danger."
> >
> > NATO officials are investigating, and have warned exercise participants to avoid a recurrence
> > of the incident. "
> >
> > Graham
>
> Bottom line, the naval vessel issued a standard warning to an
> approaching vessel to identify themselves. If it was directed at the
> ferry all they had to do was comply.
How can a tiny ferry made for 6 knots give a warship 1000 yds clearance in a 2300 yd wide channel ?
Graham
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
.
>
> How can a tiny ferry made for 6 knots give a warship 1000 yds clearance in a 2300 yd wide channel ?
>
>
> Graham
They were issued a standard message. They would need to give way to
the greatest extent possible GIVEN the area and their ability to
maneuver. Should this ever happen to you, the military vessel needs to
be able to see you make positive evasive action. Make the best course
you can to give them the widest passage. If they see you making an
attempt you are safe. If you continue and do not communicate with the
military vessel you will likely die.
Rodney
Eeyore
Rodney wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > How can a tiny ferry made for 6 knots give a warship 1000 yds clearance in a 2300 yd wide channel > ?
>
> >
> > Graham
>
> They were issued a standard message.
It's *standard* to warn Clyde ferries that they'll be fired on ?
> They would need to give way to
> the greatest extent possible GIVEN the area and their ability to
> maneuver. Should this ever happen to you, the military vessel needs to
> be able to see you make positive evasive action. Make the best course
> you can to give them the widest passage. If they see you making an
> attempt you are safe. If you continue and do not communicate with the
> military vessel you will likely die.
If such a thing ever happened in British waters we'd want the Captain's proverbial hide !
Typical US cowboys.
You don't deserve us as an ally.
Graham
Rodney
Eeyore wrote:
>
> If such a thing ever happened in British waters we'd want the Captain's proverbial hide !
>
> Typical US cowboys.
>
> You don't deserve us as an ally.
>
> Graham
First of all, I don't make claims I can't back up and I would suggest
you consider the same.
Second, I completely agree with you. We do not deserve you nor do we
need you. I would like nothing better than to accommodate you and get
our military out of your country. I would also love to see our space
program separate from ESA.
If it makes you feel better to pound your chest and make anti-US
comments then be my guest. I couldn't give a shit less. Other than
some fine whiskeys, I can't think of anything you bring to my party off
hand.
Rodney
jakdedert
to the USS Cole--in a foreign port--in 2000. Considering the damage
done by a small inflatable boat loaded with explosives, the prospect of
a ferry loaded with same is certainly a threat to be reckoned with.
The captain might should have known the ferry would be there, but the
ferry captain had no right to challenge the naval vessel or impede it's
progress.
Given that protocols were followed, and no incident resulted, I don't
understand the outrage.
jak
Eeyore
jakdedert wrote:
> I think everybody in this thread would do well to remember what happened
> to the USS Cole--in a foreign port--in 2000. Considering the damage
> done by a small inflatable boat loaded with explosives, the prospect of
> a ferry loaded with same is certainly a threat to be reckoned with.
In *British* waters ?
> The captain might should have known the ferry would be there,
How ?
> but the
> ferry captain had no right to challenge the naval vessel or impede it's
> progress.
He didn't.
> Given that protocols were followed, and no incident resulted, I don't
> understand the outrage.
It's 'protocol' to threaten British shipping in British waters with gunfire ?
Graham
jakdedert
been a Brit' warship. Everybody's hunkered down these days. A British
ferry? How about an American or United 757? Nobody thought those could
be used as weapons either...and that happened on American soil.
Save your outrage for your own government (and ours) for what they're
doing in the rest of the world. This was a minor incident, no harm --
no foul. People are *dying* elsewhere!
jak
Eeyore
jakdedert wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > jakdedert wrote:
> >
> >> I think everybody in this thread would do well to remember what happened
> >> to the USS Cole--in a foreign port--in 2000. Considering the damage
> >> done by a small inflatable boat loaded with explosives, the prospect of
> >> a ferry loaded with same is certainly a threat to be reckoned with.
> >
> > In *British* waters ?
> >
> >
> >> The captain might should have known the ferry would be there,
> >
> > How ?
> >
> >
> >> but the
> >> ferry captain had no right to challenge the naval vessel or impede it's
> >> progress.
> >
> > He didn't.
> >
> >
> >> Given that protocols were followed, and no incident resulted, I don't
> >> understand the outrage.
> >
> > It's 'protocol' to threaten British shipping in British waters with gunfire ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
> Nobody shot anybody. I reckon it would have been the same if it had
> been a Brit' warship.
Errr... NO !
Did you see the link where the exercise commander apologised to the ferry operator
?
> Everybody's hunkered down these days. A British
> ferry? How about an American or United 757? Nobody thought those could
> be used as weapons either...and that happened on American soil.
>
> Save your outrage for your own government (and ours) for what they're
> doing in the rest of the world. This was a minor incident, no harm --
> no foul. People are *dying* elsewhere!
Sadly so.
Time for us to leave Iraq before it gets any worse.
Graham
liquidator
Yeah we were talking about bad planning earlier- Iraq sure proves both our
governments and both our militaries are capable of it...