# U.S. Navy Ship Fires on Boat Off Dubai, Killing 1



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/w...n-boat-off-coast-of-united-arab-emirates.html




*"The Associated Press reported from Dubai that the smaller boat could have been mistaken for a threat in the Gulf waters off Dubai, which are not far from Iran’s maritime boundaries"*

It isn't that bloody close!!!


----------



## Fariborz (Jul 15, 2012)

Ogri750 said:


> *"The Associated Press reported from Dubai that the smaller boat could have been mistaken for a threat in the Gulf waters off Dubai, which are not far from Iran’s maritime boundaries"*
> 
> *It isn't that bloody close!*!!


Americans are trigger happy people by nature

Also this isn't even that bad. 

On July 3, 1988, the Americans shut down an Iran Air Airbus A300 on its way to Dubai. The civilian passenger jet was carrying mostly women and children to Dubai, where they were going to spend their summer vacation. 290 people were killed that day.

Later they said that it was mistaken for an Iranian F-14, but they never apologized for the incident officially and the crew responsible for the incident got medals!!!!! The same aircraft carrier is still parked in the same place. 

sorry, I can't post links b/c of my post count, but if you want more info google: Iran Air Flight 655.


----------



## md000 (Dec 16, 2008)

Fariborz said:


> Americans are trigger happy people by nature


Way to categorize people with a lovely blanket statement.

I won't start with examples of Canada.

As for what happened, who knows - the investigation isn't done yet. Regardless, it is a tragedy and I'm positive that, if fault is determined, the people involved will face due process.


-md000/Mike
BTW - I've shot a gun twice. Both times, in Sharjah at the gun club. Once with people from this forum (British, mostly) and once with a Saudi client.


----------



## ccr (Jun 20, 2010)

I can visualize this because...

I used to dive a deep wreck (Innis, 73m depth) off the East coast. The wreck is located in the "anchor zone" about 10 (?) nautical miles off shore from Fujairah.

At times, a large US supply ship anchored at the edge of the zone but still at least 2-3 miles from the wreck.

The shortest distance to the wreck from the harbor is a directly line over where the US ship usually anchors. So whenever we go out (used to be every weekend), we have one of the multiple fast RIB equipped with .50 cal machine gun protecting the ship comes out and "force" us to make a wide diversion around the ship.

The RIB makes its intention very clear, and no way you could get any closer to the ship without crashing into the RIB or getting shot.

I am sure this is standard procedure to protect an anchored war ship, especially what happened to the USS Cole in Yemen (i.e. got damaged by a fishing boat full of explosive in harbor) a few years ago.

And further more, even though it is legal to dive further than a fixed distance from an anchored ship, we were 3 times that distance yet the US ship called the UAE Coast Guard one time on us - yet they see us diving the same wreck every weekend...  so we spent 6 hours getting questioned by the UAE Naval personnel... 

On the same token, there were Japanese war ships anchored in the same zone - with no RIB protection and no hassle to fishermen and divers...


----------



## Ohio State Sucks (Jun 12, 2012)

Fariborz said:


> Americans are trigger happy people by nature
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> You are naive. Nothing more to say.


----------



## Mr Rossi (May 16, 2009)

"This is your last warning, please divert your course or we will be forced to fire"

"Yes boss, yes boss, I am doing the turning boss"


----------



## Evok (Apr 6, 2012)

Fariborz said:


> Americans are trigger happy people by nature


Trolls gunna troll. 

I look forward to seeing the investigation reports. Very likely the Navy recorded the incident; hope they release the footage.


----------



## Fariborz (Jul 15, 2012)

Look at all the anger here. 

Your country's navy has been parked in that body of water for decades and is responsible for the death of thousands in those decades, mostly civilians (i.e. IA flight 655, this incident and many more) and instead of apologizing, you guys are giving attitude. 

What a state of affair.


----------



## Evok (Apr 6, 2012)

Fariborz said:


> Look at all the anger here.
> 
> Your country's navy has been parked in that body of water for decades and is responsible for the death of thousands in those decades, mostly civilians (i.e. IA flight 655, this incident and many more) and instead of apologizing, you guys are giving attitude.
> 
> What a state of affair.


Well I'm not really angry, so lets logically break down your points:

1) We've had carriers in the region for decades. This is true and it doesn't cause me any consternation. 
2) Responsible for the death of thousands in those decades, mostly civilians. This is partially true. The USG has killed thousands in the past decade in the region through a relatively unsuccessful war. The majority of these deaths were not civilian, but military or militant (meaning not part of a standing army but engaged in warfare activities). 
3) Giving attitude. Not really. I'm happy to back up my discussions with references if you'd like to get into the detail. 

I suppose you'd consider me one of those "trigger happy" Americans in that I know how to operate a weapon as required. Similarly, I've learned that weapons should never be used unless necessary, and that the finality of death is exactly as described. 

So feed on, troll. I'm not angry, or even mildly upset, and I know I can't convince you otherwise of your beliefs. I just hope that others reading these forums don't broadly believe ignorant talk like this anymore than claiming that "locals here are arrogant savages." People are people. 

-Evok


----------



## Swerveut (Jun 24, 2012)

md000 said:


> Way to categorize people with a lovely blanket statement.
> 
> I won't start with examples of Canada.
> 
> ...



Really? the incident happened in 1988! How come the investigation is not complete yet?

Mistaking a big passenger plane for a fighter aircraft - seems like a mistake that really cannot be a mistake. 

About americans being trigger happy, I lived in the South for more than 6 years, and I can attest to this fact.


----------



## rsinner (Feb 3, 2009)

Fariborz said:


> Look at all the anger here.
> 
> Your country's navy has been parked in that body of water for decades and is responsible for the death of thousands in those decades, mostly civilians (i.e. IA flight 655, this incident and many more) and instead of apologizing, you guys are giving attitude.
> 
> What a state of affair.


Why should the people on this forum apologise? Not that I am saying that what the US government does is right or wrong, but why should individuals on this forum apologise for the actions of the government?
I am guessing that you are not Canadian by birth. Do you apologise for what the Canadian govt. (assuming you consider Canada your country and not just a passport of convenience) does to every random person you meet? Do you apologise if the Iranian government decides that some citizen should be killed by stoning? 

My point is that there is a lot of hate in the world, and a lot of it is because of various governments' policies because of multiple reasons. As individuals we should just try and avoid all this hate. And in your case, since you are just about 20ish, you are the future - the world will be as pleasant or as hateful as you or people of your/our generation (no I am not old, just older than you) will make of it.

PS: I really wish the incident had not occured. An unnecessary loss of life for someone who was away from his family and just trying to earn a living.


----------



## rsinner (Feb 3, 2009)

Swerveut said:


> Really? the incident happened in 1988! How come the investigation is not complete yet?
> 
> Mistaking a big passenger plane for a fighter aircraft - seems like a mistake that really cannot be a mistake.
> 
> About americans being trigger happy, I lived in the South for more than 6 years, and I can attest to this fact.


Calm down. If you read again, he meant the investigation into the incident last evening.


----------



## md000 (Dec 16, 2008)

Wow, slow on the trigger, eh? (like the pun?) 

No - the incident from yesterday - the investigation isn't done and won't be for a bit.

-md000/mike





Swerveut said:


> Really? the incident happened in 1988! How come the investigation is not complete yet?
> 
> Mistaking a big passenger plane for a fighter aircraft - seems like a mistake that really cannot be a mistake.
> 
> About americans being trigger happy, I lived in the South for more than 6 years, and I can attest to this fact.


----------



## Gavtek (Aug 23, 2009)

All Americans are trigger happy in the same way that all Iranians and Pakistanis are terrorists.


----------



## indoMLA (Feb 6, 2011)

Ogri750 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/w...n-boat-off-coast-of-united-arab-emirates.html
> 
> *"The Associated Press reported from Dubai that the smaller boat could have been mistaken for a threat in the Gulf waters off Dubai, which are not far from Iran’s maritime boundaries"*
> 
> It isn't that bloody close!!!


It is not that close, but if you read other articles, you would know that smugglers use these types of bouts and routes. US war ships have witnessed this a number of times.

In the article, it says that 'A 677-foot United States Navy refueling ship in the Persian Gulf opened fire on Monday with a .50-caliber machine gun on what appeared to be a 30-foot sport fishing boat *after it ignored repeated warnings to stop*, killing a crew member and causing a spike in oil prices that reflected the heightened tensions in the region between Iran and the United States.' 
Not saying that it could have been dealt with differently, but you have to safeguard the crew and the assets first. 



Fariborz said:


> Americans are trigger happy people by nature


WTF? Go away.



Fariborz said:


> Look at all the anger here.
> 
> Your country's navy has been parked in that body of water for decades and is responsible for the death of thousands in those decades, mostly civilians (i.e. IA flight 655, this incident and many more) and instead of apologizing, you guys are giving attitude.
> 
> What a state of affair.


We are safeguarding our assets as well as our allies. Saudi and the UAE are allies and they have asked for the assistance as they also fear a nuclear armed Iran. Now, go away.



Gavtek said:


> All Americans are trigger happy in the same way that *all Iranians and Pakistanis are terrorists*.


but this is a fact. :tongue1:


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

Not wanting to pour oil on the fire, but Americans seem (note I said seem, not do) to have an unhealthy desire when it comes to firearms. Let's face it, the NRA have a powerful voice and not many politicians want to go against them.

The 2nd amendment "the right to bear arms" could be a good thing or a bad thing. If one person has the right to carry a gun, then so does the next. The result, more guns, more chance of people firing those guns, more people killed.

If you look globally at domestic (a country's internal affair), there are too many cases of armed nutters going on killing sprees more often in the US than elsewhere. I am not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere (Norway, Dunblane to name but two), but it just seems to happen more in the US.

This may certainly give rise to the notion that Americans are quick to pull the trigger.

The investigation findings will make interesting reading, if they are made public.

Incidently, I have used many firearms in my time.


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

indoMLA said:


> *after it ignored repeated warnings to stop*


Wonder what language the warnings were given in. I am sure that most of the fishermen are not fluent in English.

Of course it could have been dealt with differently, but hindsight is 20/20


----------



## indoMLA (Feb 6, 2011)

Ogri750 said:


> Not wanting to pour oil on the fire, but Americans seem (note I said seem, not do) to have an unhealthy desire when it comes to firearms. Let's face it, the NRA have a powerful voice and not many politicians want to go against them.
> 
> The 2nd amendment "the right to bear arms" could be a good thing or a bad thing. If one person has the right to carry a gun, then so does the next. The result, more guns, more chance of people firing those guns, more people killed.
> 
> ...


You have to also look at the population of the country and the the number of that population that have arms. I am sure the US is still high, but this would also account for the high number of 'nutters.'


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

I know when I was serving in Northern Ireland, we governed by strict protocols on when we could or couldn't open fire.

The main one being "if your life or the lives of those around you are in immediate danger" (can't remember the exact wording now), then you could open fire. It was known as the yellow card.

A fishing boat, 1km away, does that represent immediate danger?


----------



## indoMLA (Feb 6, 2011)

Here is another article that states that, "The USNS Rappahannock issued warnings to the smaller vessel by voice, radio and light signals before firing." We will just have to wait and see what happens.


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

I am just playing devil's advocate here, but:

Voice - What language?

Radio - The local fishermen here will not pay for the licence to use radios, the only channel they ever use is channel 16 (emergency channel) and that is to talk amongst themselves. Even the coastguard doesn't monitor channel 16 too much for that reason. Again though, what language?

Lights - Would you know what a ship meant if lights just started flashing?


There is no formal training for the fishermen here. They get a boat and go out and fish. They certainly have no idea about the procedures on a naval vessel.


----------



## md000 (Dec 16, 2008)

Ogri750 said:


> I know when I was serving in Northern Ireland, we governed by strict protocols on when we could or couldn't open fire.
> 
> The main one being "if your life or the lives of those around you are in immediate danger" (can't remember the exact wording now), then you could open fire. It was known as the yellow card.
> 
> A fishing boat, 1km away, does that represent immediate danger?



The US military is governed by a similar set of "rules of engagement". I'm 99.5% positive that they followed these rules of engagement.

As for being in immediate danger - lessons have been learned. Gulf of Aden terrorist bombing a few years ago (someone else mentioned it). Fishing boat sped up alongside the ship and blew it up.

-md000/Mike


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

This boat wasn't alongside, it was a km away.

Warning shots across the bow maybe? If they understood nothing else, the crew would have understood that


----------



## md000 (Dec 16, 2008)

Ogri750 said:


> This boat wasn't alongside, it was a km away.
> 
> Warning shots across the bow maybe? If they understood nothing else, the crew would have understood that



Because I'm a dork, I looked up the rules of engagement for the US Navy (http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-7474e92d0bb0/San-Remo-ROE-Handbook). The rules of engagement include a warning shot.

And...from a news source: "U.S. officials who declined to be identified said one warning shot was fired before the Rappahannock resorted to lethal force to disable the approaching boat."

So, yeah. Gotta wait for the investigation before we go hammering on americans again.

-md000/Mike


----------



## vantage (May 10, 2012)

Not long after 9/11, their were 2 US warships anchored in the Forth off Rosyth (Jockshire)
I was teaching sailing at the marina there at the time.

They felt justified in setting up a one mile exclusion zone around themselves.

The estuary is a mile wide.
It is a busy shipping lane.
gas tankers kept going past
It was utterly ridiculous.

We kept sailing in the area, they kept sending out RIBS with guns. A happy litttle merry go round.
It did not do their reputation any favours, that's for sure.


THis is no reflection on the current situation, but sometimes the 'standard' rules just don't work in real situations


----------



## Garth Vader (May 11, 2012)

*Dark Helmet*: What's wrong with you? I said fire across her nose, not up it!
[The gunman turns around and is cross-eyed]
*Gunman: *Sorry, sir. I'm doing my best.
*Dark Helmet:* Who made that man a gunman?
*Cross-eyed gunman 2: *I did, sir. He's my cousin.
*Dark Helmet:* Who is that?
*Col. Sanders: *He's an *******, sir.
*Dark Helmet:* I know that, who is he?
*Col. Sanders:* That's his name, "*******". Major *******.
*Dark Helmet:* What about him?
*Col. Sanders:* He's an ******* too, sir.
*Dark Helmet:* How many *******s we got on this ship, anyhow?
*Everyone on the ship:* Yo, sir!
*Dark Helmet:* I knew it, I'm surrounded by *******s.


Chortle


----------



## AK47 (Feb 16, 2012)

I feel so safe here knowing that the Americans are protecting us from those deadly fishing boats.


----------



## Tropicana (Apr 29, 2010)

So far we had one side of the story and TBH it made sense, a boat near a navy ship, didn't pay attention to warnings, and got hit as a result, an expected response.


Now the other side of the story is out, and the version is that there were no warnings

To ask questions :
why would a navy ship hit a boat unless there were no warnings given?

Conversely, why would a boat used regularly by fishermen go towards a navy ship and not pay attention to warnings? They definitely are not pirates and would know well to stay clear of such ships

One of these 2 parties made a mistake, but who ?


No warning was given: fishermen injured in US Navy shooting - Emirates 24/7

Speaking to Emirates 247 from the hospital where the three injured men are receiving treatment, Kumaresan from Tamil Nadu said they were about 50 meters away from the boat when they were suddenly fired upon.

"There was clearly no warning issued to us. Or if they indeed had, we never heard anything. We were returning to the shore after venturing into the sea from fishing. We were in front of the US ship. They came too close to us. We could not have possibly gone faster," said the fisherman still reeling under the shock of losing his friend.


----------



## Evok (Apr 6, 2012)

Tropicana said:


> No warning was given: fishermen injured in US Navy shooting - Emirates 24/7
> 
> Speaking to Emirates 247 from the hospital where the three injured men are receiving treatment, Kumaresan from Tamil Nadu said they were about 50 meters away from the boat when they were suddenly fired upon.
> 
> "There was clearly no warning issued to us. Or if they indeed had, we never heard anything. We were returning to the shore after venturing into the sea from fishing. We were in front of the US ship. They came too close to us. We could not have possibly gone faster," said the fisherman still reeling under the shock of losing his friend.



50 METERS? Are you kidding me? You couldn't get out of the way of a glorified tugboat (refueler) to the point that they got within 50 meters of you and then the US randomly opens fire? 

Other people on this forum have complained that at kilometer ranges they've been warned off, these guys decided to get within 50 meters?


----------



## ccr (Jun 20, 2010)

As described in my earlier post, been there done that and have been detained and questioned for hours. I know you CAN'T get within 50m of the US ship without getting past a couple of very fast moving RIB's with 50-cal machine guns.


----------



## CDN2012 (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't see the point of blaming anyone until an investigation is wrapped up. But im sure the experience in gulf of Aden had something to do with.

Sent from my iPad using ExpatForum


----------



## Bulls_96 (Apr 21, 2010)

I didn't read the article
Are we talking about a supply ship, or a cruiser? I know it wasn't a carrier or a battle ship, because they wouldn't be out alone. And there wouldn't be anything left of the other ship. 
As a sailor, you just don't get within firing range of a military vessel. Just don't. If I were on watch, and you got too close to my area, you can be sure that I have a weapon pointed at you. Don't give them a reason to shoot you because they just might take it. We're the US Sailors wrong? I don't know. But don't pressure a guy with a .50 cal!!!!

The Iranian flight is fishy. Civilian passenger flight mistaken for an F-14. Right. We will never know why they shot that plane down, but we know it was not a mistake.


----------



## Engineer (Jan 13, 2012)

Supply


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

Don't get within firing range of a military vessel?

Considering the range of some modern weapons, just how much of an exclusion area would you expect? 150 miles?

Contrary to widespread hype, they are not all out to get you.....................


----------



## Tropicana (Apr 29, 2010)

Some Indian papers are quoting the fishermen as saying that they told the crew to slow down, but they did not listen to them....


----------



## XDoodlebugger (Jan 24, 2012)

Ogri750 said:


> Don't get within firing range of a military vessel?
> 
> Considering the range of some modern weapons, just how much of an exclusion area would you expect? 150 miles?
> 
> Contrary to widespread hype, they are not all out to get you.....................


My office window looks out over parked carriers and other US ships whenever they are in port but I'm not worried. But then I am not in a motorboat speeding towards them either.


----------



## Ohio State Sucks (Jun 12, 2012)

XDoodlebugger said:


> My office window looks out over parked carriers and other US ships whenever they are in port but I'm not worried. But then I am not in a motorboat speeding towards them either.



"A ship in a harbour is safe, but this is not what a ship is built for."


----------



## Mr Rossi (May 16, 2009)

Tropicana said:


> Some Indian papers are quoting the fishermen as saying that they told the crew to slow down, but they did not listen to them....


Yes boss, this way boss, best short cut for you.


----------



## Bulls_96 (Apr 21, 2010)

Ogri750 said:


> Don't get within firing range of a military vessel?
> 
> Considering the range of some modern weapons, just how much of an exclusion area would you expect? 150 miles?
> 
> Contrary to widespread hype, they are not all out to get you.....................


If the US Military is watching you from 150 miles away, I think you have bigger issues. Because the Navy has a ton more range than 150 miles.


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

The 150 miles was given as an example to show how ridiculous an exclusion zone could be. I am fully aware of the range of modern weapons.

If the US military was watching me, yes I would be very worried. Especially if I was on the same side as them


----------



## pamela0810 (Apr 5, 2010)

The last time I heard of the coastguard ignoring a fishing vessel, the entire city of Mumbai was under attack. These terrorists casually entered our city pretending to be fishermen, it was that easy!

Timeline of the 2008 Mumbai attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this day and age, you cannot ignore ANYTHING. We all know how sensitive this area is right now so why take any chances?


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

Big difference with the domestic coastguard dealing with something and a visiting armed force taking actions into their own hands.

I am sure you wouldn't be saying "why take chances" if it had been your relative killed.

I may be taking this a bit more personally than I should, but sadly, I had colleagues killed by a blue on blue (no such thing as "friendly fire"), in 1991 (1st Gulf war). They were the British crew of a Warrior AFV (properly marked, tagged, correct frequencies etc) which was taken out by US forces. Hence my doubts on what protocols were actually followed.


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

Terrorists can casually enter anywhere. Do we shoot everyone now that could be a terrorist?

Please give me a description so I know what to look for.

Hold on, they tried that and an innocent Brazilian died at Stockwell tube station.


----------



## pamela0810 (Apr 5, 2010)

I lost an acquaintance and a family friend in Mumbai because the Coast guard "assumed" that they were local fishermen. US Intelligence had sent over warnings about this attack months before it happened but people ignored them. This man had been working at the Taj Mahal Hotel for 40 years and had just finished his shift that day but because his daughter was in the building, he went back to check up on her. Someone's cell phone rang and he got shot in the head while he was hiding in the freezer. So yes, I still say "why take chances?"


----------



## Ogri750 (Feb 14, 2008)

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

Unless you are 100%, you don't open fire.


----------



## pamela0810 (Apr 5, 2010)

Ogri750 said:


> We are going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Unless you are 100%, you don't open fire.




I wish this didn't have to happen but unfortunately, we live in a time of "what ifs" and a constant state of paranoia thanks to the actions of a few extremists. I doubt anyone will ever wait until they are 100% sure anymore.

Sad that another innocent life has been lost.


----------



## Dozza (Feb 17, 2009)

ccr said:


> I can visualize this because...
> 
> I used to dive a deep wreck (Innis, 73m depth) off the East coast. The wreck is located in the "anchor zone" about 10 (?) nautical miles off shore from Fujairah.
> 
> ...


I second this - When out fishing in the jebel ali channel I have faced the same no nonsense approach.....You just know that you really do need to move :boxing:

Not speaking English or not understanding Maritime rules, etc, would have no bearing on not understanding 'One should move very quickly'!!


----------



## Evok (Apr 6, 2012)

Ogri750 said:


> I may be taking this a bit more personally than I should, but sadly, I had colleagues killed by a blue on blue (no such thing as "friendly fire"), in 1991 (1st Gulf war). They were the British crew of a Warrior AFV (properly marked, tagged, correct frequencies etc) which was taken out by US forces. Hence my doubts on what protocols were actually followed.



All current issues aside, sorry for the loss of your mates. War is hell.


----------

