Or perhaps another Gulf of Tonkin fell through.

"You will explode..."

lol

Typcl bngbng pnt f vw. f crs, d lt's cmpltly xcs th swrm xrcs prctcd thr by th rnn Nvy. Thy cm wthn scnds f frftng t.

It sounded like a lame prank-call to me when I heard it, but I thought "no, because there are no radio prank calls!" Little did I know.

Yes, Bour3, what fools we are. After all, once the Iranian Navy stationed all of those battleships off the coast of Florida, the US had no choice but to put all of its ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

(Note, for the record, that the original post said nothing about the "swarm exercise" -- this particular point of view was entirely hallucinated by Bour3)

Who is in who's back yard here?

remember Iran Air Flight 655? I do. I suspect most Iranians do too. How many of those teenage American sailors do?

Greetings

Bour3- it's Iranians in Bass Boats Vs an Aeigis Cruiser, not the Battle of Jutland, get a grip!

As provocation it pales by comparison to Cold War incidents with Russian Trawlers and American war ships...

Plus its sorta kinda Iran's strait to patrol, so its sorta kinda expected to meet Iranian patrol boats in THEIR strait ;)

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

I wonder how I would handle it if I were on the deck of a US cruiser in hostile water, and suddenly a small watercraft came out of nowhere, beelining for the side of my ship, a saying "you will explode!" Probably not as well as the guys on these ships did.

#8 posted by WarLord:

Bour3- it's Iranians in Bass Boats Vs an Aeigis Cruiser, not the Battle of Jutland, get a grip!

LOL, WarLord!

This whole "no, it was a prankster" thing is ludicrous on the face of it: applying Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is that the same boats who were harassing the convoy physically were harassing them verbally as well. This hypothesis explains the available facts perfectly well. Forgive me if I don't take the Iranians at their word: these are the same people who were trying to convince the world that the US was trying to infiltrate their country by sending highly-trained, cybernetics-enhanced squirrels over the border. I certainly don't put it past them to fabricate any supporting video that they feels shows them in a more sympathetic light.

@ #8: Those are speedboats, not bass boats. I would like to remind you however of the USS Cole (which was also Aegis-equipped): I can guarantee that every sailor on those ships was thinking about the Cole while these guys were dodging around. Seventeen sailors were killed, and thirty-nine were injured in that tragedy, and it will not be soon forgot.

This wasn't just a patrol: the ships they were harassing are easily identifiable with the naked eye from several miles away; there is no reason to swarm around them like that if there is no intention to tweak the tiger's tail. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they gambled that we wouldn't be trigger-happy. Luck for them, they were right. This time.

#9 posted by Crash:

I wonder how I would handle it if I were on the deck of a US cruiser in hostile water, and suddenly a small watercraft came out of nowhere, beelining for the side of my ship, a saying "you will explode!" Probably not as well as the guys on these ships did.

Nice play on words there...

Right, except that scenario didn't happen in this case. Small watercraft didn't "come out of nowhere" and "beeline" for the side of the ship.

Otherwise, the Navy would have blown them out of the water or at least attempted to do so.

#11 posted by mkultra:

This whole "no, it was a prankster" thing is ludicrous on the face of it...

Ludicrous? Is that why the Navy spokesperson told ABC News that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by?

Apparently it's not such a "ludicrous" idea to the U.S. Navy at this point. Are you privy to more info than the Navy? If so, haul your ass to the headquarters and debrief them ASAP.

On the contrary, Cowicide, current Navy rules of engagement explicitly prohibit them from shooting at such boats, unless they shoot first. That is how a small dinghy managed to bomb the USS Cole.

MK Ultra, obviously I agree with you that the Cole was on every sailor's mind through that whole little exchange, but on reading the Navy Times' article it doesn't seem totally farfetched that the "you will explode!" radio message came from someone other than the Iranian commander. There's a lot of shipping out there and someone might have found it funny to see if he could bait the Americans into doing something foolish.

Just a quick note: 'Filipino Monkey' is not a person, it's a phenomenon. The phrase is used to denote someone using public airwaves for random messages sans useful content - someone we'd call a 'troll' on the internet.

#14 posted by Crash:

On the contrary, Cowicide, current Navy rules of engagement explicitly prohibit them from shooting at such boats, unless they shoot first. That is how a small dinghy managed to bomb the USS Cole.

You're incorrect.

After the USS Cole was hit, the U.S. published rules of approach for boats/ships that included a 100 yd exclusion zone where entering that zone could result in immediate defensive action.

In this case, three U.S. ships armed their weapons and prepared to fire in self defense. If the captains had given the go ahead, they would have blown them out of the water (as I said).

And, as I stated... they did not "come out of nowhere" and "beeline" for the sides of the ships.

Yeah, occupy the countries on their east and west, move a navy into the waters to their south, and then get excited over a some bs. What a bunch of crap.

Greetings

All the references to the USS Cole are so many "straw men" havng no bearing on the incident in question

The USS Cole was anchored and unready!

ALL US warship traversing the Strait are manuvering to advantage and ready to 'rock and roll'

It was indeed bass boats against an Aegis!

But Dubya needs a war....

Can you say Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch? I know you can ;)

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

Cowicide, I can't seem to find a publication of the changed rules of approach but I'm willing to take your word for it as what you're describing does make sense. Thank you for correcting me.

Well, okay, I'll rephrase my original point: I wonder how I would respond if a group of small outboard boats sped directly towards my ship over a period of time from a long distance away, refusing to reply to instructions to keep their distance, when all of a sudden a voice came on the radio saying "YOU WILL EXPLODE."

I still don't think I would have handled it as well as the deck officer here (Cdr. Jefferey James of the the USS Hopper, maybe?). I am impressed by his professionalism and nerve in the face of something very much resembling someone trying to kill him.

It was a dumb maneuver on the Iranian's part, plain and simple. Since the bombing of the Cole, the US has been very clear and explicate that pulling little boats up next to US ships is a big old no-no. In this case, the American ships were indeed about to take "defensive maneuvers" which I imagine means either firing warning shots, or if they feel threatened enough, firing not-so-warning shots. As fast as those slick little boats look, it would have been a very short battle.

Irregardless of who sent the messages, and personally, I am inclined to believe that it was the Iranians rather then the worlds biggest coincidence, it almost turned ugly.

#19 posted by Rindan:

this case, the American ships were indeed about to take "defensive maneuvers" which I imagine means either firing warning shots ...

They did fire warning shots, the next step was blowing them out of the water.

Also, when you say "worlds biggest coincidence", what do you mean? The fact that Iranians are in their own waters while we happen to be there and someone sends a provocative transmission through just as Bush is trying to ramp us up to war with Iran?

Yes, "worlds biggest coincidence", indeed... maybe the CIA was behind that transmission instead, huh? If not for the professionalism of our armed services, it would have been very convenient for the Bush Admin if the Navy had "jumped the gun", so to speak.

#18 posted by Crash:

I am impressed by his professionalism and nerve in the face of something very much resembling someone trying to kill him.

I'm not sure how much there was a resemblance of someone trying to kill him in that situation. But I am impressed with our people as well and believe the rules of approach should be further than 100 yds. in cases where there are numerous boats.

It's pretty suicidal mission for the Iranians to be sent on -- "Boys, we want you to go and taunt this US warship and see if they'll take a pot-shot at you.".

We could do without another war.

First off, they should both invest in some fucking tripods... Those videos are ridiculous.

I did not understand one word, where are the subtitles?

Now, I could be mistaken, but the report I heard on NPR said that they were in international waters. I only mention this because many people have been saying we were "in their [the Iranians] waters," and no one has mentioned that that might not be true.

I bring lots of guns, and stand around at the street corner, near your house. After a couple of days, you walk by, pass too close to me, and I shoot you. I please self defense. The reason is simple. You came closer than the 5 meter security zone I've declared around myself. I was worried that you may have wanted to stab me with a knife. That is despite the fact that I did not see you carrying a knife, or any other weapon with which to attack me, and at that time I myself was carrying 20 different weapons, and wearing full armour.

I then walked over, and confirmed that you did not have a knife concealed on your person, or any other weapon. Nevertheless, it was still self-defense, because you COULD have been carrying a knife. I did not think you were concealing a knife when I shot you, but it was possible, though improbable.

The absurdity of the situation. I do not see why the Americans are publicising this incident. What purpose does it serve, other than to paint the Americans as arrogant, solipsists, who care nothing for anybody else. If the Americans pass nearby, and you do not quickly scurry out of the way like good little cockroaches, they will step on you and break your back. Is it the job of the American government to make their nation more unpopular, and more hated throughout the rest of the world? Are they trying to make sure Al-Qaeda get more recruits, because they are worried that Al-Qaeda is not strong enough to carry on this "War Against Terror" for the rest of eternity.

The Strait of Hormuz constitutes "straits used for international navigation" under international law, which allows free to the passage of ships of all nations, including warships, in a designated sea lane.

So, that sea lane is not, technically, international waters (the Strait is too narrow at its narrowest point), but neither is it, properly speaking, territorial waters. It's a designated area for transit passage, with its own set of rules different than those for either international waters or territorial waters.

I wonder if the American ships would have been immediately sunk by missile fire after they fired on the Irani speed boats?

"I did not understand one word, where are the subtitles?"

Unfortunately, the U.S. is unable to translate Farsi, Arabic, or any other Middle Eastern language. The translators turned out to be gay and as we know, the war on marriage trumps the war on terror.

Daniel, you forgot the part about me having a history of stabbing you under circumstances very similar to those you've described.

BTW... the "I am coming to you" part.

Did the US cut off the rest of that sentence to make it more threatening? As in, "I am coming to you from my secret underground laboratory." ?

nfrtntly, rn s th n tht wnts wr nw, thgh nt wth th .S. Thy wnt th .S. t lv s thy cn hv thr wr wth srl. f rn thght tht nthr SS Cl ncdnt wld snd th S hm, thy wld d t n n nstnt. Prhps thy'r strtng t wndr f tht mght wrk, nd ths ws tst t s hw cls thy cld gt. Th gl s nvr gng t b t dft mrc n bttl, th gl wll b t brk r wll t fght nd snd s pckng.

ws srprsd th S shps lt th rnns s gt s cls s thy dd. t lkd t m lk t ths spd, th rnn bts wr nly bt 2 scnds wy frm mpct t sm pnts nd wndr f th S shps wld hv vn hd tm t sht thm f t cm t tht. Th nly lgcl rsn t gt tht cls s t prb r rctns.

ls dn't frgt tht w w qt fw mrcn trp dths t rnn sppls gng t rq. rn s dngrs. thnk w'll s wr wth thm n th nxt 10 yrs, thr thm gnst srl, thm gnst thr nghbrs r thm gnst th S r ll t th sm tm. Thr ldr mks Grg Bsh lk lk n gnt f pc, trth nd lgc. Lts hp thy nvr mk r cqr nk, bcs thy wldn't hstt t s t.

ll th md fcs nd trndy nt-Bsh fds mk s frgt hw cmpltly btsht crzy sm f th thr ldrs n th wrld r.

Why would Iran attack Israel? Do you think they wish to see if they could survive a few dozen nuclear explosions?

further:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/12/wbush512.xml

Tkn, y shld rlly rd p n rn. thnk y'll fnd lt mr thr t wrry y thn y'll fnd rgrdng Bsh, wh t lst hs sm chcks nd blncs t kp hm n plc.

hmdnjd ds nt rcgnz th rgm f srl nd hs bn qtd s syng t "mst vnsh frm th pg f tm". rn s nt (yt) bl t ccmplsh ths thrgh pn wr, lthgh f y xpnd th d f scd bmbng t th lvl f ntn, t ds frc m t wndr f "vctry" fr rn wld ncssrly qt t dftng srl, r mrly dyng n th ttmpt s tht thy cn chv thr trnl rwrd. Fntcl slm s scry thng. f rn thght tht gttng tslf nkd wld cs th rst f th slmc ntns t rs p nd crsh srl, 'm nclnd t thnk thy'd d t.

H ls, ncdntlly, s hlcst dnr. 'm nt sr wht wrrs m mr: ppl lk Hckb wh thnk th rth ws crtd 6000 yrs g r ppl lk hmdnjd wh thnk th msscrs cmmttd by th Nzs wr fkd. Whn y'r dlng wth ths lvls f grss gnrnc, nythng s pssbl.

S br tht n mnd whn cntmpltng rnn mtvs: thr ldr s lk Bsh, nly fr mr clvr nd fr mr crzy.

Take a moment to read the above link if you would.

I think characterizing an entire nation anywhere solely on the basis of the current leadership is both easy and dangerous.

Whatever witch, you need some sedatives...and to quit reading The Drudge Report. You were probably beating this same drum about Saddam back in 2002.

If there was a news story about someone who ran into a crowded theatre and shouted "FIRE, FIRE" just for fun, I guess boingboing would also categorize that as an example of "MAVERICK SPIRIT". How about serial killers, they're examples of "MAVERICK SPIRIT" too.

@#33:
"So bear that in mind when contemplating Iranian motives: their leader is like Bush, only far more clever and far more crazy."

And completely powerless when it comes to his own nation's policies. He is a puppet/mouthpiece of the council of guardians and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Meanwhile, somebody is selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, Iran's competitor for regional leadership:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7185660.stm

Whiterwitch, you're aware that Ahmadinejad is not an all-powerful dictator who can make whatever military decisions he likes, right? Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, also has some say in these matters as Commander-In-Chief, for example. This article talks a bit about the government structure of Iran, and mentions that "Iran is the only country whose executive does not control the armed forces. In fact, though the president has nominal rule over the Supreme National Security Council and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, in practice the Supreme Leader dictates all matters of foreign and domestic security."

Too many things about this don't add up.

1) Do we have any actual confirmation that the people on the speedboats were members of the Iranian military?

2) What sort of terrorist *taunts* a warship that could easily blast him out of the water? The entire premise of using a small craft in an attack is to remain inconspicuous, eg. the USS Cole incident a few years back.

Somehow, it all comes off as a childish prank. I'm guessing that some 3rd party was trying to provoke some sort of incident.

@#40 Schmod:

Here come the tinfoil Hat boys...

@#40 Schmod:

Here come the tinfoil Hat boys...

...It's interesting how this thread immediately degenerated into hawks vs doves, when it should have stayed on the Monkey. Some facts about the Monkey:

1) According to most sources, like Spartacus, there's several radio trolls who claim to be The Filipino Monkey. According to quite a few Military radio operators and about 5x more Hams, the *original* one is still trolling, and has been since 1981. There's now at least five other trolls in various parts of the world who are either impersonating the Original Monkey, or are simply carrying on his "work". They're distinguishable from one another, but only if you compare the two as they've gotten very, VERY good at their impressions of this twat.

2) According to several USN surface-types, they actually have gotten a triangulation fix on at least one of the Monkeys on several occasions. The problem is that nobody within the chain-of-command will let them drop some heavy ordnance on the fix.

3) The Monkey doesn't just harass military vessels, he also loves to fuck with cruise ships and oil tankers. Apparently the Carnival line is very familiar with the Monkey, and would love to see him keelhauled. According to some reports, the Monkey may have caused at least one near collision back in 1997 between a Carnival cruise ship and a small freighter during an extreme fog condition - the Monkey, instead of trolling, was pretending to be a Coast Guard station offering assistance, and ordered a course change that was supposed to *avoid* a freighter. Instead, they missed each other by ~50 yards, and only because both crews had posted full lookouts!

...The Monkey is just proof of my belief that malicious trolls should automatically receive the death penalty when caught. That way, when they go to Hell, they can be one of the 57 virgins every terrorist gets as a "reward".

and on who's territory is this "fix" found?

"Daniel, you forgot the part about me having a history of stabbing you under circumstances very similar to those you've described."

The USS Cole was attacked by Al Queda, a non-state actor, made up mostly of Arabs, mostly from Saudi Arabia. The speed boats were from the Iranian government, which is a state actor, non-Arab (Persians are not Arabs), and obviously non Saudi. The only similarity is that both are Muslim. I'm not trying to be "politically correct" here, but it is just plain intellectually lazy and very dangerous to equate all Muslims. If you can't be bothered to make appropriate distinctions, then I can't help you.

@#43 OM

"That way, when they go to Hell, they can be one of the 57 virgins every terrorist gets as a "reward".

Timothy McVeigh got 57 virgins?

no he got the raisins

for the pedants

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html

I think it would be a wonderful Strangelove-esque irony if a radio troll caused a war. Would he feel powerful? Ashamed? Would he end up a tragic figure who watches his town get bombed to ashes

This kind of thing has been going on for years around the world, Negativland had lots of snippets of people cursing at each other over the CB radio on the banned "U2" single. I used to listen to CB radio chatter years ago (I would tape record it sometimes to sample and use in recordings a la Negativland), and there were always guys doing ridiculous stuff on the airwaves, singing, rapping, rambling away with nobody else on the band, mostly bored truckers I guess. I even had a friend who would get on the radio from his apartment and pretend to be a trucker, with his own made-up CB codes and slang.

The thing is, if either side really wants to go to war they'll find an excuse. And back in the states nobody will convince an ultra-conservative that it WASN'T the Iranians that threatened to "explode" a US ship, but rather a prankster on shore. But then, you can't convince them of anything that doesn't fit their world view -- the world is how they say it is, science and history and eyewitnesses be damned.

Instead of a radio troll, imagine a spoiled rich kid with a powerful father, someone not too bright and shadowed by a ruthless clique of vicious self interest that dictates to him his every move.... Imagine what goes through his head as he longs for the days of booze and drugs and no public responsibility.

#50 TAKUAN You have it right up until the last sentence.

I don't see any lynch mob

I'm a licensed ship's captain and wrote this up on my maritime blog. Here's one interesting comment I got on the post;

The term ‘monkey’ is considered exceedingly derogatory by Filipinos. The line from an old American song: “The monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga is often trotted out as an example of a racial slur (Wrongly as it happens). I know of a bookstore clerk who nearly got punched after, quite innocently, referring to a mischievous Filipino child as ‘a little Monkey’.

I have no doubt this tale will be picked up by the press here and blown out of proportions.

Yes, Filipinos are oversensitive, I’ll admit that, but this sort of bilge goes beyond the pale.

Bob

Here's the full post: The Filipino Monkey Strikes Again (and again and again…)

@53

thank you for that

Woot! the monkey strikes again!

When I was In the Navy i heard this guy many times.

Remember they were on channel 16 which allows anyone with a radio to hear and respond. it was an obvious challenge that they were overhearing so it would have been easy for even a child to respond the way they did.

If you over heard to guys telling each other to "Get outta my face" and you wanted to rile em up you could just yell "or you'll do what?".

This is the same thing thats goin on here.

Navy Ships challenge vessels in there normal activities all the time. So no doubt most people who spend a good deal of time in international waters have heard this message go out. Hell i've got it tattooed on my brain from hearing it so often.

The moniker Filipino Monkey was always used by many different people goin out over the channel. Sometimes they would play music or Just repeat the name over and over agian. When we would challenge other vessels it was not uncommon for the "monkey" to just say shut up or something else just for the sake of interjecting something.

The thing that dosen't sit right with me is: Why does the screen go black and then you hear it. You don't see the Cameraman put the lens cap on. So either the camera is broken or the sound has been added afterwards.

I must admit, I have a morbid curiosity as to how effective Sunburn missiles actually are.

All the info regarding this event, taken with a good dose of US-Iranian relations over the past 30 years, makes it difficult to figure out what to believe (if you are truly open-minded).

I don't like the Iranian government, but in light of all the bad intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq ("bad intelligence"-- there's an oxymoron for you), it's hard for me to trust anything the Bush administration says anymore. They could be mistaken, they could be cherry-picking, they could be outright lying.

Or it could be the truth. But that's what happens to the "boy who cried wolf."

*snork*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2240990,00.html

yeah, what he said

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/1199.html

Saddened to see so many people commenting with a complete lack of historical perspective. Does no one remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Some of our current leadership were getting coffee for the guys that thought up that great idea.

1953 The US and UK depose the ELECTED government of Iran.

Iran Iraq War: Iraq invades Iran, US supports Iraq.

US shoots down Iranian civilian airliner via military vessel IN IRANIAN waters.

Maybe it would pay to actually for once think about the perspective that the other side is coming from? Why are so many of you so eager to believe your own government's propaganda and yet so instantly disbelieve that of whoever the government says is an enemy?

Ooh rah matey, Warlord.

Daniel (24), not all Americans think their country has the right to do that.

Whiterwitch (30, 33), there's not a lot I can say about your errors that the rest of this thread hasn't covered. The Iranians would have to be stupider than Bush to think another USS Cole-type incident would cause us to withdraw our forces. They'd have to be even stupider than that to attack Israel -- which, as Takuan points out, has nuclear weapons. So, which is it? Are they as wily and dangerous as you say, or are they as colossally stupid as you say? You can't have it both ways.

As for all the things Ahmadinejad has said: first, he doesn't have a lot of real power. Many people here have pointed that out. You've never acknowledged it. Second, yes, a lot of it is batshit crazy. So tell me: do you think we should go in fear of every country whose leaders say batshit crazy stuff? Should we start wars with them? Have you ever noticed how many world leaders say batshit crazy things from time to time? If not, why should I listen to your political analyses? Many world leaders will occasionally say batshit stuff. If you haven't noticed that by now, you haven't been paying attention.

Here's the point at which I decided you're a nutcase:

"if you expand the idea of suicide bombing to the level of a nation,"

"it does force me to wonder if "victory" for Iran would necessarily equate to defeating Israel,"

"or merely dying in the attempt so that they can achieve their eternal reward."

"Fanatical Islam is a scary thing."

"If Iran thought that getting itself nuked would cause the rest of the Islamic nations to rise up and crush Israel,"

"I'm inclined to think they'd do it."

Om (43), great comment.

GCaptain (53), same goes for you; and thanks for the link.

Om@43: That's a really great comment -- thanks for weighing in.