2 Navy Boats in Iranian Custody

[parabelum]

I know this what I'm about to say may be offensive to some, and I acknowledge that I come from a different culture and a different world, but, in the midst of everything, another thing came to me.
In Sarajevo we had to at times charge at tanks with nothing more then half busted sks rifles, but we did what we had to do to to keep the enemy away.

Having said that, why did these vessels not engage the enemy? I apologize in advance for offending some, but , in Bosnia, this would be considered seditious act at the least.

I am trying to make sense of this. I know this isn't Bosnia, but what has happened here?

I remember US military fighting with such bravery, side by side with those of us who tried to fend off genociadial maniacs, and this doesn't make sense.


These guys had to have been set up.

[mojo84]

Parabelum, One of the craziest things our government does is send troops into hostile or near hostile territory with strict orders not to fire or defend themselves. It is a shame so e of the situations our people are put in.

[Pawpaw]

Understand also that land and naval engagements are two wildly different animals.

For those two small boats to have engaged the enemy would have been about like you charging that tank while strapped to a riding lawnmower and armed with nothing but a slingshot.

[howdy]

Go back a few days. Why were Iranian boats allowed within 1500 yds of an Aircraft Carrier, allowed to fire rockets and then depart? This doesn't pass the smell test either.

[dale blanker]

Just saw and heard John Kerry patting himself on the back for them being released after they were humiliated. Making it political as usual. He basically said they wouldn't have been released two years ago before he and Obama made friends with them. He even thanked them for letting them go.

Sounds reasonable to me. Kerry spent a lot of time working with his Iranian counterpart and that may have helped. We hear a lot of criticism of the Iranian nuclear agreement but I just saw an interview on Charlie Rose (PBS) with Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, where he thought that it was a really good deal - delaying nuclear bomb development in Iran by at least 10-15 years. Maybe it wasn't a "Trump-quality" deal but it is real and a lot of folks think it was much better than they expected it would be.

Remember the U.S. is still viewed with contempt by the Iranian hardliners for our role in supporting Iraq when it was at war with Iran and for our support of the Shah before that. There are apparently a lot of young Iranians that like the U.S....why not build on that?

[Beiruty]

I know this what I'm about to say may be offensive to some, and I acknowledge that I come from a different culture and a different world, but, in the midst of everything, another thing came to me.
In Sarajevo we had to at times charge at tanks with nothing more then half busted sks rifles, but we did what we had to do to to keep the enemy away.

Having said that, why did these vessels not engage the enemy? I apologize in advance for offending some, but , in Bosnia, this would be considered seditious act at the least.

I am trying to make sense of this. I know this isn't Bosnia, but what has happened here?

I remember US military fighting with such bravery, side by side with those of us who tried to fend off genociadial maniacs, and this doesn't make sense.


These guys had to have been set up.

Most likely it was a secret mission. Boats get ambushed. They were ordered not to engage the enemy, but surrender. Everything else is history.

[carlson1]

I know this what I'm about to say may be offensive to some, and I acknowledge that I come from a different culture and a different world, but, in the midst of everything, another thing came to me.
In Sarajevo we had to at times charge at tanks with nothing more then half busted sks rifles, but we did what we had to do to to keep the enemy away.

Having said that, why did these vessels not engage the enemy? I apologize in advance for offending some, but , in Bosnia, this would be considered seditious act at the least.

I am trying to make sense of this. I know this isn't Bosnia, but what has happened here?

I remember US military fighting with such bravery, side by side with those of us who tried to fend off genociadial maniacs, and this doesn't make sense.


These guys had to have been set up.

Not the same America. Eight years of Obama.

[parabelum]

I know this what I'm about to say may be offensive to some, and I acknowledge that I come from a different culture and a different world, but, in the midst of everything, another thing came to me.
In Sarajevo we had to at times charge at tanks with nothing more then half busted sks rifles, but we did what we had to do to to keep the enemy away.

Having said that, why did these vessels not engage the enemy? I apologize in advance for offending some, but , in Bosnia, this would be considered seditious act at the least.

I am trying to make sense of this. I know this isn't Bosnia, but what has happened here?

I remember US military fighting with such bravery, side by side with those of us who tried to fend off genociadial maniacs, and this doesn't make sense.


These guys had to have been set up.

Not the same America. Eight years of Obama.

Right you are. Utter degradation after almost 8 years of Obama.


Meanwhile, Kerry tells his friend that this could be a good "story" for both of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-told-iran-s ... 20880.html

Good story indeed Mr.Kerry, good story indeed.

Everytime you Mr.Kerry get a chance to humiliate your own Country and Armed Forces, it makes for a good story.

[misterlarry]

I don't know a lot of Navy personnel, and even less about navy regulations, but this would be the first time I have ever heard of a Naval Captain (someone in charge of a vessel) allowing it to be boarded by any foreign power unless the crew had been disabled or he had been ordered to allow the boarding. Doesn't this seem strange?

[carlson1]

I don't know a lot of Navy personnel, and even less about navy regulations, but this would be the first time I have ever heard of a Naval Captain (someone in charge of a vessel) allowing it to be boarded by any foreign power unless the crew had been disabled or he had been ordered to allow the boarding. Doesn't this seem strange?

This is also the first time I have ever heard of someone in the military issue an apology, but so Kerry told Iran, "thank you."

[Swoops1]

Just my personal observation. This stinks to high heaven. As much as I hate to be a conspiracy theorist something is not right about this whole story. It hurt my heart and made me angry at the same time to see our sailors on their knees being submissive to these .... When I was in the Navy we had standing orders if all else fails scuttle the vessel so it did not fall into the hands of the enemy . Oh forgot according to the Kerry Iran is our friend now.

[VMI77]

This is statistically and tactically an impossible event, from everything I've read here and other outlets.

So, is this a case where these vessels were disabled via chip technology byway of someone somewhere giving out codes to the Iranians I wonder? Cars and aircraft can certainly be remotely disabled , same for vessels right?
I am having hard time deducting logical explanation for this that doesn't at least partially implicate our own Navy? I don't even want to go down that path of analysis, so the only other explanation is that we have an enemy within, at the Executive level.

I think the Bracken explanation may be correct. They were interdicted in international waters and the lying snake in the White House colluded with the Iranians to say we were in their waters so he wouldn't look like the weasel he is. But no matter what really happened, we definitely have an enemy within at the executive level, and their leader sits in the Oval Office.

[VMI77]

I know this what I'm about to say may be offensive to some, and I acknowledge that I come from a different culture and a different world, but, in the midst of everything, another thing came to me.
In Sarajevo we had to at times charge at tanks with nothing more then half busted sks rifles, but we did what we had to do to to keep the enemy away.

Having said that, why did these vessels not engage the enemy? I apologize in advance for offending some, but , in Bosnia, this would be considered seditious act at the least.

I am trying to make sense of this. I know this isn't Bosnia, but what has happened here?

I remember US military fighting with such bravery, side by side with those of us who tried to fend off genociadial maniacs, and this doesn't make sense.


These guys had to have been set up.

Because for political reasons the military is often ordered from the very top to stand down. The political leadership doesn't care a wit about the people in the military. When I was in we had sentries with unloaded weapons and absurd ROE that would have been suicidal in an attack. This was made manifest in the USS Cole attack...the Cole had sentries with unloaded weapons and ROE that prohibited them from shooting the attackers. After the ship was attacked, when the SEALs showed up to provide security, the sentries were still wandering around with unloaded weapons and the same idiotic ROE.

As much as I despise Obama this is nothing new. We did nothing for the guys on the USS Liberty while they were being pounded by the Israelis. We did nothing for the guys on the USS Pueblo when they were captured by the North Koreans. The Marines guarding the barracks in Beirut, when Reagan was president, also had unloaded weapons and stupid ROE.

[VMI77]

I don't know a lot of Navy personnel, and even less about navy regulations, but this would be the first time I have ever heard of a Naval Captain (someone in charge of a vessel) allowing it to be boarded by any foreign power unless the crew had been disabled or he had been ordered to allow the boarding. Doesn't this seem strange?

See the USS Pueblo, another humiliating military failure under LBJ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29

The ammunition on Pueblo was stored belowdecks, and her machine guns were wrapped in cold weather tarpaulins. The machine guns were unmanned, and no attempt was made to man them. An NSA report quotes the sailing order:

(...) Defensive armament (machine guns) should be stowed or covered in such manner so that it does not cause unusual interest by surveyed units. It should be used only in the event of a threat to survival (...)

and notes

In practice, it was discovered that, because of the temperamental adjustments of the firing mechanisms, the .50-caliber machine guns took at least ten minutes to activate. Only one crew member, with former army experience, had ever had any experience with such weapons, although members of the crew had received rudimentary instructions on the weapons immediately prior to the ship's deployment.[11]

The North Korean vessels attempted to board Pueblo, but she was maneuvered to prevent this for over two hours. A sub chaser then opened fire with a 57 mm cannon, killing one member of the crew. The smaller vessels fired machine guns into Pueblo, which then signaled compliance and began destroying sensitive material. The volume of material on board was so great that it was impossible to destroy it all. An NSA report quotes Lieutenant Steve Harris, the officer in charge of Pueblo '​s Naval Security Group Command detachment:

(...) we had retained on board the obsolete publications and had all good intentions of getting rid of these things but had not done so at the time we had started the mission. I wanted to get the place organized eventually and we had excessive numbers of copies on board (...)

and concludes

Only a small percentage of the total classified material aboard the ship was destroyed.

Radio contact between Pueblo and the Naval Security Group in Kamiseya, Japan, had been ongoing during the incident. As a result, Seventh Fleet command was fully aware of Pueblo '​s situation. Air cover was promised but never arrived. The Fifth Air Force had no aircraft on strip alert, and estimated a two to three-hour delay in launching aircraft. USS Enterprise was located 510 nautical miles (940 km) south of Pueblo, yet its four F-4B aircraft on alert were not equipped for an air-to-surface engagement. Enterprise '​s captain estimated that 1.5 hours (90 minutes) were required to get the converted aircraft into the air.

Sound familiar? This article claims LBJ was asleep during the incident. That also sound familiar? I don't believe it for a second. Just like Obama ordered the stand down in Benghazi LBJ ordered a stand down on the Pueblo --and the Liberty too, btw. BTW, they were left to die but the Liberty crew did everything within their limited means to defend the ship and scuttle it when there was no other option.

[powerboatr]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/i ... -1.2495135
really good detailed video



i am sure the rules of engagement are quite restrictive, but they are very classified so we may never really know.

the odds of both vessels having "magic" issues are very suspect.
no way both vessels lost comms and nav and propulsion at the same time. PLUS the currents and winds in the gulf at the time was southerly, shifting west. so that would have drove them towards friendly shores, if they were floating at the mercy of the wind and currents.
they were set up and used as pawns for the higher ups.

one thing the video outlines or defines is the actual upper cami top of the officer, he is a surface warfare office, which he should be.
the fact they had at least one commissioned officer in the flotilla, clearly indicates the superiors know this is a hostile water environment, and can anticipate interactions with those who are not friendly. The officer carries the authority to "use deadly force" to protect the unit or to use this force to make the situation "safe", what those rules are, we may never know as this is not something the enemy needs to know for obvious reasons.
watching the video also reveals only one coxswain in flight suit, but that really is non issue.
one other oddities, the sailors were all in there tshirts undergarment, on the decks of the boats, so the irainians must have had them shed the life vests and tactical gear. air temps in the region are cool, it was odd they didnt let them put the cami top shirts on. like they purposely didnt want anyone to see the NAMES of the sailors? they blurred the passport photos and never showed the military identification cards of which they all would have had on their person . Why would the enemy be concerned about privacy of detainees, in regards to their names.

maybe the position of the vessels was leaked to the iranians, and they sailed out into international waters and ambushed our two boats.