Tuesday, July 17, 2012
U.S. Fires on Persian Gulf Boat, 1 Dead
A Navy official said it's not uncommon for Iranian speed craft to harass U.S. ships in the region, but in this case the boat wasn't Iranian.
"I can't emphasize enough that this has nothing to do with Iran," the official said.
Really? If we weren't trying to pick a fight with Iran, would our Navy ships be in a position to have to defend themselves? Ah but you say this was a set-up, the US Navy is trying to instigate. Well read on.
Raelson said the small motor vessel that was hit by gunfire from the Rappahannock was "approaching at a high rate of speed" and "on a deliberate approach."
Another Navy official said it was "on a course that would have caused it to impact the Rappahanock... It wasn't just close, it was on a course that would have ultimately taken it to impact."
Why would anyone come full speed at a military ship? The smaller ship had on board four Indians and one Emirat. Interesting how the United Arab Emirates has already come out and said it does not appear to be an act of terrorism. Even our drunkest American boaters don't roll up on a US Navy ship at high speed on an intercept course. You know you will receive the same fate as the boaters in the Gulf war. The incident just keeps reminding me of a term from the Reagan era, plausible deniability. There were no Iranians or Syrians on the craft but why would 4 Indians and one Emirat find it necessary to harass a US Naval warship? Me thinks someone wants to pick a fight and it isn't just the US.