"Iran's state media says the video and audio recordings of Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats confronting US warships in the Strait of Hormuz were fabricated.

The Pentagon has said that five Iranian speedboats approached its ships on Sunday, radioing the vessels and threatening to blow them up.

"It's the kind of incident that can provoke exchange of fire and we think the Iranians need to be on notice that they are fishing in troubled waters here."

The audio and video recordings were made separately, but were pulled together by the US navy.

US military officials, including Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the most senior US navy commander in the Gulf, cautioned that they had not been able to definitively connect the radio call (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6EBE816A-5816-4F8F-9D36-4C080DEA1DFE.htm) with one of the Revolutionary Guards boats."


http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2008/1/9/1_237393_1_5.jpg


The Revolutionary-Guard's Armada

I trust Al-Jazeera and the Iranian government MUCH more than our soldiers/military.

:rolleyes:


The Iranians would NEVER use the seas to provoke another nation. We all know that they are the epitome of class and diplomacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032300574.html

I know that's not true, Old Phart but if it were it would align you with Mr. Shaman who is always ready to believe the worst about the United States.

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2008/1/9/1_237393_1_5.jpg
The Revolutionary-Guard's Armada


Funny Picture. Funny caption.
Until you recall that the boat shown below killed 17 sailors on the USS Cole
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/zodiac21.jpg

You probably forgot.






.

I doubt he forgot. You have to remember, it was only members of the hated American military who were killed, not wonderful anti-Americans.

The USS Cole attack occurred under the watch of President Clinton... therefore it would, OF COURSE, be "erased" from Sham's memory.

I like your use of the name Sham when referring to Mr. Shaman. That is exactly what he is, a sham. An even better sobriquet might be Shame.

Funny Picture. Funny caption.
Until you recall that the boat shown below killed 17 sailors on the USS Cole
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/zodiac21.jpg
Whew! Looks like they got thru it, pretty-much unscathed.

I know that's not true, Old Phart but if it were it would align you with Mr. Shaman who is always ready to believe the worst about the United States.

Like Geraldo said last Nite on - Hannity & Colmes - the Irans
were betting on a David vs. Goliath scenario,in preparation for
Bush in Israel.They were bankin that Al jazeera would play video
clips showing how Bully United States is again Provoking little Iran
and it's 60 mph speedboats.
I'm glad Bush gave an ultimatum.
Bush is a No Nonsense,unflinching Leader.
If Liberal A$$klown Carter was Pres,he proilly woulda given all those
5 speedboaters some Coupons to Disneyworld and maybe some
Free Baseball tickets to opening day at Yankee Stadium.
Maybe Ebbets Field,also.Carter's Sooooooooo out of it.

[QUOTE=Brooks]Funny Picture. Funny caption.
Until you recall that the boat shown below killed 17 sailors on the USS Cole
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/zodiac21.jpg


**************************
And furthermores,WHAT did Billy Boy Clinton DO about it.>?
The same thingy his worthless wifey wood.
Ignore,wish-away and focus on somethin more important,like
their Agendas.

Like Geraldo said last Nite on - Hannity & Colmes - the Irans
were betting on a David vs. Goliath scenario,in preparation for
Bush in Israel.They were bankin that Al jazeera would play video
clips showing how Bully United States is again Provoking little Iran
and it's 60 mph speedboats.
I'm glad Bush gave an ultimatum.
Bush is a No Nonsense,unflinching Leader.
....Especially when someone else has to do all the fightin' & dyin'!!!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/h/4/bush_serving_beer.jpg

I trust Al-Jazeera and the Iranian government MUCH more than our soldiers/military.

:rolleyes:

I --and I am being serious instead of sarcastic-- trust Al-Jazeera and the Iranian government much more than I do the band of thoroughly dishonest fucks infesting the White House at present.

The Iranians would NEVER use the seas to provoke another nation. We all know that they are the epitome of class and diplomacy.

Ok, let's do the sarcasm thing;


We all know that B*sh and his cabal would NEVER use fabrications and LIES to fool the People into going to war against another nation that has not threatened or harmed us. We all know that they are the epitome of honesty and transparency in their actions.

[/sarcasm]

Whew! Looks like they got thru it, pretty-much unscathed.

ahhhh dont be a dick shaman.... hate bush,hate war,hate anything you please.... but dont disrespect those who fall serving the armed forces.... and those who lost lives on USS cole were not even part of "Bushco's war" there were just serving over seas.

....Especially when someone else has to do all the fightin' & dyin'!!!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/h/4/bush_serving_beer.jpg

Looks like all the OTHER Chickenhawks (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/01/10/fox_news_chickenhawks_regret_strait_of_hormuz_inci dent_didnt_turn_into_armed_conflict.php#more) jumped on-board, as well!!!! :rolleyes:

Like Geraldo said last Nite on - Hannity & Colmes - the Irans
were betting on a David vs. Goliath scenario,in preparation for
Bush in Israel.They were bankin that Al jazeera would play video
clips showing how Bully United States is again Provoking little Iran
and it's 60 mph speedboats.
I'm glad Bush gave an ultimatum.
Bush is a No Nonsense,unflinching Leader.
If Liberal A$$klown Carter was Pres,he proilly woulda given all those
5 speedboaters some Coupons to Disneyworld and maybe some
Free Baseball tickets to opening day at Yankee Stadium.
Maybe Ebbets Field,also.Carter's Sooooooooo out of it.

You are actually quoting the meatheads from Fox news and in the same post saying that Bush is stand up guy w/this crap..
"Bush is a No Nonsense,unflinching Leader."
:hitout:

gimme a fukin break!:lolhit:

I --and I am being serious instead of sarcastic-- trust Al-Jazeera and the Iranian government much more than I do the band of thoroughly dishonest fucks infesting the White House at present.

First, this report was from the pentagon, not the white house. Second, If you want to trust the Iranian government and their "cheerleading" AL-Jazeera media... then be my guest. Just don't expect many (including myself) to do likewise.

I don't have any problem with firing on those boats, especially after they started dropping things into the water. I think the first shots should be warning shots however. Iran provoked the situation.

....Especially when someone else has to do all the fightin' & dyin'!!!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/h/4/bush_serving_beer.jpg

NO MORE Successful attacks since 9/11.
No More Economic Recession.
Let The Georgy Pourgy do his thingy and it's 10'oclock
an all's well.And that ever doggone day of the week,by golly.

First, this report was from the pentagon, not the white house. Second, If you want to trust the Iranian government and their "cheerleading" AL-Jazeera media... then be my guest. Just don't expect many (including myself) to do likewise.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......let's give Dickhead Cheney (and, his band o' civilian-employees, at the Pentagon) the benefit-o'-the-doubt, once more!! :rolleyes:

"Iran's state media says the video and audio recordings of Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats confronting US warships in the Strait of Hormuz were fabricated.


And of course you believe them.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......let's give Dickhead Cheney (and, his band o' civilian-employees, at the Pentagon) the benefit-o'-the-doubt, once more!! :rolleyes:

Cheney is in charge of the pentagon now? Wow, your grasp of our military is right out of a ermmm.... hmmm.... comic book?

Hack.

We all know that B*sh and his cabal would NEVER use fabrications and LIES to fool the People into going to war against another nation that has not threatened or harmed us. We all know that they are the epitome of honesty and transparency in their actions.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ahhhh dont be a dick shaman.... hate bush,hate war,hate anything you please.... but dont disrespect those who fall serving the armed forces.... and those who lost lives on USS cole were not even part of "Bushco's war" there were just serving over seas.
Not a prob......but, I'll be goddamned if I ever trust the civilian-employees (Dickhead Cheney's inside-folks) in the Pentagon, ever again!!!

Cheney is in charge of the pentagon now? Wow, your grasp of our military is right out of a ermmm.... hmmm.... comic book?

Hack.
Better cut-back on your meds, Gramps. This is no time to medicate yourself from reality (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Leopold_OSP-Manipulation.htm). :rolleyes:

"The New York Times noted on Wednesday that the US-released audio includes no ambient noise of the kind that might be expected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181929.stm) if the broadcast had come from on one of the speedboats."

*

Gee......whatta shocker. :rolleyes:

Maybe BUSHCO should hire some o' bin Laden's tech-dudes.

Better cut-back on your meds, Gramps. This is no time to medicate yourself from reality (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Leopold_OSP-Manipulation.htm). :rolleyes:
20:1 I have a hellava lot more "bullets" in my gun than you do.

:D

I don't have any problem with firing on those boats, especially after they started dropping things into the water. I think the first shots should be warning shots however. Iran provoked the situation.
Thank god at least one of you is sensible.

20:1 I have a hellava lot more "bullets" in my gun than you do.

:D
....And, that's your excuse for believing more o' BUSHCO's bullshit??? :rolleyes:

Thank god at least one of you is sensible.
.....And, the other has historical-precedence on-his-side (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Echoes_of_Tonkin_seen_in_averted_0111.html). :p

*

"The similarities between this week's confrontation between US warships and Iranian speedboats and events off the coast of North Vietnam 44 years ago were too hard for many experts to miss, leading to the question: Is the Strait of Hormuz 2008's Gulf of Tonkin?"

....And, that's your excuse for believing more o' BUSHCO's bullshit??? :rolleyes:
I don't consider the Navy "Bushco", and I make no excuses for still having lead in my pencil. :D

The Iranians would NEVER use the seas to provoke another nation.

Hmmm...

We have two carrier battle groups parked right off their coast, easily within striking range.
Would we tolerate it if another country did that to us?
Who is using the seas to provoke whom?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_strait_of_hormuz_2004.jpg

I have no problem with a show of our force to a nation with rogue intentions and actions. Does it piss them off? I certainly hope so. We "provoke" many nations to get our point across... be it economically, with a show of military force, or diplomatically. It's how things get done.

So it is ok for us to provoke Iran but it is not ok for Iran to respond.


.

It's international waters... and their funeral (if they persist).

i have no doubt that the Bush team would fabricate such an event if they could, but the military isn't going to be a party to something like that.

The ships were named - all the sailors on those ships would have been aware of the event - does Shaman think that every one of them would contribute to such a fabrication?

Clearly the event happened - it's beyond fabrication & lets face it - it's certainly within the scope of what Iran does. Last year they kidnapped a bunch of British sailors & held them hostage for absolutely no reason.

They were lucky - the US warships could have trained their guns on those boats and torn them to shreds no bigger than a postage stamp in less than 10 seconds.

I don't consider the Navy "Bushco"....
Nor do I. But......"The Pentagon has said.." can hardly be considered a Navy-position.

You do recognize there's a difference (not-to-mention a different agenda), between the two entities, right?? :rolleyes:

I have no problem with a show of our force to a nation with rogue intentions and actions.
So, now.....you're supporting Iran's actions (in their backyard)? :confused:

You must have some serious-arguments (with yourself), when no one's watching. :rolleyes:

i have no doubt that the Bush team would fabricate such an event if they could, but the military isn't going to be a party to something like that.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm)........ :rolleyes:

"The New York Times noted on Wednesday that the US-released audio includes no ambient noise of the kind that might be expected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181929.stm) if the broadcast had come from on one of the speedboats."

*

Gee......whatta shocker. :rolleyes:

Maybe BUSHCO should hire some o' bin Laden's tech-dudes.

I know its a stretch but if you paid attention you'd note that they indicated they didn't know where the transmission came from.:rolleyes:

I know its a stretch but if you paid attention you'd note that they indicated they didn't know where the transmission came from.:rolleyes:
Geeeeeeeeeeeee.....I wonder who gave the general-public the impression the transmissions DID come from the boats????

Could it possibly have come from the same folks (at the Pentagon) who convinced everyone that Iraq was a threat to our National Security??!!! :rolleyes:

I wonder if your inability to understand what's been written is only circumscibed by the atmosphere. They spoon feed you everything and you still can't sort it out?

I wonder if your inability to understand what's been written is only circumscibed by the atmosphere. They spoon feed you everything and you still can't sort it out?
Sorry. I don't have the same taste for bullshit you do.

Eat up!

"But the mystery remains of where the voice that apparently threatened to bomb the US ships came from. The Pentagon has said that it recorded the film and the sound separately, and then stitched them together - a dubious piece of editing even before it became known that the source of the voice could not, with certainty, be linked to the Iranian patrol boats.

A post on the New York Times news blog yesterday from a former naval officer with experience of these waters said that the radio frequency used in the Strait of Hormuz was regularly polluted with interfering chatter, somewhat like CB radio. "My first thought was that the 'explode' comment might not have come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility."



http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewizardofwhimsy/9-11.jpg


"Despite growing doubts about what happened, the Bush administration continued to stand by claims of Iranian hostility. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2239119,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)"

Would we tolerate it if another country did that to us?

Who is using the seas to provoke whom?
I guess that depends on which year (and, which whacked-out Repub-Admin (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001976.html)) to which you're referring.

*

"The Reagan administration, in effect, decided to undertake a secret war...Heavily armed U.S. Special Operations helicopters, stealthy, sophisticated killing machines that could operate by day or night, were ordered to the Persian Gulf. Their mission was to destroy any Iranian gunboats they could find. Other small, swift American vessels, posing as commercial ships, lured Iranian naval vessels into international waters to attack them..."

"It is my view that the only thing that has prevented Bush and Cheney from attacking Iran so far has been the strong opposition of the uniformed military (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011108a.html), including the Joint Chiefs.

As the misadventure last Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz shows, our senior military officers need all the help they can get from intelligence officers more concerned with the truth than with “keeping lines open to the White House” and doing its bidding." - Ray McGovern (http://www.alternet.org/authors/5591)

First, this report was from the pentagon, not the white house.

Yeah.....i'm sure none of the brass at the Pentagon are working in concert with the lying bastards in the White house.

Second, If you want to trust the Iranian government and their "cheerleading" AL-Jazeera media... then be my guest.

I don't trust the Iranian government or AlJazeera unreservedly. But I do trust them far more than I do the callous politicos infesting the White House at present, who have already proven beyond all doubt, several times over, just how utterly dishonest and ruthless they are.

"Despite growing doubts about what happened, the Bush administration continued to stand by claims of Iranian hostility."

But of course they do.

Just because Bush/Cheney and company have (yet again) been caught red-handed peddling a pack of lies to the gullible American Public (in order to foment yet another foreign military misadventure) is no reason for them to ever admit it.

________________________

"In the long and harrowing national nightmare we presently find ourselves trapped in, a filthy brand of governance has emerged, entrenching itself deep into our society with its claws of violence and destruction. It is a government devoid of honor or integrity; living, breathing and spewing lies and deceits, exploiting fear and insecurity to achieve its goals and manipulating an entire nation suffering through its post 9/11 insecurity and slumber into blindly following its evil dictates."___________Manuel Valenzuela

I don't trust the Iranian government or AlJazeera unreservedly. But I do trust them far more than I do the callous politicos infesting the White House at present, who have already proven beyond all doubt, several times over, just how utterly dishonest and ruthless they are.
Then you've said all you need to. Thanks for clearing it up.

I watched the boat show on the news Friday-I think.

Firstly-I was always under the impression that US Naval ships kept a perimeter around them, just in case someone bumped into them with
1000lb of C4 on board.

Secondly-If the Iranians think they could grab some US Naval personnel, like
the British incident, I think they're very mistaken.

Thirdly-If the White House wanted a confrontation with Iran, it was handed
to them on a plate, they didnt.

Thirdly-If the White House wanted a confrontation with Iran, it was handed to them on a plate, they didnt.
Fortunately (for General Georgie....at least, in his mind), that's all in-the-Past (http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA_Current.htm), now!

Fortunately (for General Georgie....at least, in his mind), that's all in-the-Past (http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA_Current.htm), now!
Nice, you fuckin' hack. :rolleyes:

Secondly-If the Iranians think they could grab some US Naval personnel, like
the British incident, I think they're very mistaken.
A bit, yeah.
Thirdly-If the White House wanted a confrontation with Iran, it was handed
to them on a plate, they didnt.
How so?

How so?
'How so'.
The US 5th Fleet could swipe the Iranian Navy, and watch the Redskins playing at the sametime.

Iranian propaganda exercises around the US Fleet is a very dangerous game
to play.

Iranian propaganda exercises around the US Fleet is a very dangerous game
to play.

While B*shCo's propaganda exercises concerning the country of Iran --in the attempt to incite an unwarranted war-- is a very profitable game to play. For the warmongers who own a piece of the military/Industrial complex.

And one which poses very little danger to the perpetrators, given the gullibility (as is well evidenced here on this thread) of Joe Sixpack.

You are actually quoting the meatheads from Fox news and in the same post saying that Bush is stand up guy w/this crap..
"Bush is a No Nonsense,unflinching Leader."
:hitout:

gimme a fukin break!:lolhit:
More like a dead-duck, saber-rattling loser (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/14/bush.mideast/index.html)!! :thumbs:

While B*shCo's propaganda exercises concerning the country of Iran --in the attempt to incite an unwarranted war-- is a very profitable game to play. For the warmongers who own a piece of the military/Industrial complex.
I agree with some of what you're saying, but I certainly wouldn't call the war "unwarranted" if they continue to fuck with us. I mean, seriously - how the hell can you call that videotape "propaganda"??? The moral here is don't smack the bear, Ackmed - it doesn't hurt the bear, and moreover, I can guaran-fuckin'-tee it'll shorten your life expectancy.
And one which poses very little danger to the perpetrators, given the gullibility (as is well evidenced here on this thread) of Joe Sixpack.
Huh? I'm badly hung over today. Please explain what you mean by this.

While B*shCo's propaganda exercises concerning the country of Iran --in the attempt to incite an unwarranted war-- is a very profitable game to play. For the warmongers who own a piece of the military/Industrial complex.

And one which poses very little danger to the perpetrators, given the gullibility (as is well evidenced here on this thread) of Joe Sixpack.

Don't let the facts get in the way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There is a reason American military officers express grim concern over the tactics used by Iranian sailors last weekend: a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a naval convoy to inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
While B*shCo's propaganda exercises concerning the country of Iran --in the attempt to incite an unwarranted war-- is a very profitable game to play. For the warmongers who own a piece of the military/Industrial complex.

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I certainly wouldn't call the war "unwarranted" if they continue to fuck with us.

?!?!

The fact that they (supposedly) have "fucked with us" gives this country the right to do what it did in Iraq and attack a nation pre-emptively and kill a few hundred thousand innocent people?!?!?

I mean, seriously - how the hell can you call that videotape "propaganda"???

Here's how.

U.S. backs off claim of U.S.-Iranian naval incident (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval)

Official Version of U.S.-Iranian Naval Incident Starts to Unravel

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval


The moral here is don't smack the bear, Ackmed - it doesn't hurt the bear, and moreover, I can guaran-fuckin'-tee it'll shorten your life expectancy.

A government of rational human beings should possess far more discretion and far less pure, blind aggression than a wild bear.

Unfortunately, thanks to the ConservaZombie faction in Amuurica, we are being led by a band of callous, coldblooded warmongers and war profiteers.

And one (game) which poses very little danger to the perpetrators, given the gullibility (as is well evidenced here on this thread) of Joe Sixpack.


Huh? I'm badly hung over today. Please explain what you mean by this.

I mean that in the *game* that the scumbags in the B*sh Administration are playing, there is little danger to them of being called into question for it or punished for their incessant lies and provocations as they try, once again, to lead the dimwitted American Public into supporting yet another war in the Middle East, this time with Iran...........the gullibility of their zombie-like followers inoculates them from criticism and from being held accountable for their despicable warmongering.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]But of course they do.

Just because Bush/Cheney and company have (yet again) been caught red-handed peddling a pack of lies to the gullible American Public (in order to foment yet another foreign military misadventure) is no reason for them to ever admit it.

*********************************8

Mabe YOU the one always " Foment " 'N !
In point of fact,that's basically all You do...DO !

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I certainly wouldn't call the war "unwarranted" if they continue to fuck with us.
Hell.....it isn't them....in OUR backyard!!!

Hmmm...

We have two carrier battle groups parked right off their coast, easily within striking range.
Would we tolerate it if another country did that to us?
Who is using the seas to provoke whom?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_strait_of_hormuz_2004.jpg

The point that most seem to miss..
We are the aggressor in their back yard..

The point that most seem to miss..
We are the aggressor in their back yard..
It's too bad they're fanning the flames.

I was under the assumption it was in international waters... therefore, open to all registered vessels of any nationality.

You're correct, OP.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm)........ :rolleyes:

Somebody who has as biased a view as yours can never be taken seriously. You'll believe simply ANYTHING that supports your crazy view of things and dismiss anything remotely obvious if it doesn't.

There's like thousands of sailors on those ships - did they get them all in on the lie also? It's pure fantasy to believe that it was a planned event & a lie - but yet that doesn't mean much to you - you just want to automatically believe anything, no matter how crazy, so long as it fits with your immature viewpoint.

It's too bad they're fanning the flames.
Yeah......they're living there, just for that purpose!! :rolleyes:

I was under the assumption it was in international waters... therefore, open to all registered vessels of any nationality.
Ah, yes.....those magical-borders that (typically) benefit their Creators (http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html)!! :rolleyes:

*

"A century ago, the map looked much different. There was no Iraq, no Jordan, no Israel, no Lebanon. The Ottoman Empire, stretching from the Balkans to North Africa, enveloped much of the region.

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Germany gave Britain and other imperial powers new opportunities to help themselves to the region’s riches. Britain and Russia reached a new agreement in 1915, dividing up Iran and Turkey. Britain and France likewise made plans to divvy up much of the Middle East between them once the war was won.

At the same time, Britain encouraged Arab revolts against the Ottoman Empire with the promise that victory would lead to a united Arab nation, reaching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf.

At the war’s end, private interests hopeful of exploiting the region’s oil urged their governments to ignore war-time promises to Arab leaders. A variety of small, divided Arab states would be much easier to maneuver into oil deals than a large, independent Arab republic."

*

Yeah.........when're they gonna quit screwin' with US.....huh? :rolleyes:

Somebody who has as biased a view as yours can never be taken seriously. You'll believe simply ANYTHING that supports your crazy view of things and dismiss anything remotely obvious if it doesn't.
Yeah......it's called (by most, in "conservative"-circles) the inconvenience of facts! :rolleyes:

There's like thousands of sailors on those ships - did they get them all in on the lie also? It's pure fantasy to believe that it was a planned event & a lie - but yet that doesn't mean much to you - you just want to automatically believe anything, no matter how crazy, so long as it fits with your immature viewpoint.
You mean....as-opposed-to your Nationalistic-efforts to make everything an obvious attack against US (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/)??!!!

You should (probably) devote more time to soap-operas. Their effort at drama would be much-more fulfilling, for you......without the (eventual) negative-impact on everyone else! :rolleyes:

Ah, yes.....those magical-borders that (typically) benefit their Creators (http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html)!! :rolleyes:

*

"A century ago, the map looked much different. There was no Iraq, no Jordan, no Israel, no Lebanon. The Ottoman Empire, stretching from the Balkans to North Africa, enveloped much of the region.

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Germany gave Britain and other imperial powers new opportunities to help themselves to the region’s riches. Britain and Russia reached a new agreement in 1915, dividing up Iran and Turkey. Britain and France likewise made plans to divvy up much of the Middle East between them once the war was won.

At the same time, Britain encouraged Arab revolts against the Ottoman Empire with the promise that victory would lead to a united Arab nation, reaching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf.

At the war’s end, private interests hopeful of exploiting the region’s oil urged their governments to ignore war-time promises to Arab leaders. A variety of small, divided Arab states would be much easier to maneuver into oil deals than a large, independent Arab republic."

*

Yeah.........when're they gonna quit screwin' with US.....huh? :rolleyes:
And what, pray tell, does this have to do with the establishment of international waters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters

It would not matter if there was one Country of Arabia, the "high seas" are still open to all valid registered shipping.

BTW - Iran is considered (by themselves and others) to be Persians, not Arabs... one of the reasons they love the Iraqi's so much.

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with the establishment of international waters?
Yeah.....it's all so clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_seas). :rolleyes:

Your argument becomes more incoherent with each post. By sailing in international waters the US was provoking Iran. by warning the boats off the US was provoking iran. By not firing on them the US was trying to provoke an international incident. Iran is really the good guys in this incident (as your girl hrc votes to condemn the PRGC as a terrorist organization). It's beyond comical.

Yeah.....it's all so clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_seas). :rolleyes:

Again, what is your point in this link? A closet Woodrow Wilson fetish? If anyone was violating this "policy"... it would have been the Iranians for attempting to provoke the U.S. warships

Do you think it's OK to pull up beside a State Trooper, shoot him/her a bird, mouth the words "F%$K YOU!", spit on their car, and drive away?

I was under the assumption it was in international waters... therefore, open to all registered vessels of any nationality.

Considered "international" by whom?

Look at the map. Much of that area and those waters is still contested.

Agan, think about my analogy. If some other country parked a carrier battle group or two off our coast and then said "We consider this international waters".
Would we accept that?
Who is provoking whom?

the only thing contested on that map are the islands.

Owning the Island gives you the rights to the waters around the Island.

Again, what is your point in this link? A closet Woodrow Wilson fetish? If anyone was violating this "policy"... it would have been the Iranians for attempting to provoke the U.S. warships

Do you think it's OK to pull up beside a State Trooper, shoot him/her a bird, mouth the words "F%$K YOU!", spit on their car, and drive away?Actually, if you dont spit on their car,(which would be hard to do while driving anyway ) :) it is ok to do just what you describe. I wouldnt recommend it, but you would'nt be charged with a crime for that action. At least here in Va you wouldnt.

Ownership of the islands is not going to change international navigation rights.

Your argument becomes more incoherent with each post.
....And, neither you NOR OldPhart has pointed-out the exact-quote that establishes the precise-borders of International Waters!

....And, neither you NOR OldPhart has pointed-out the exact-quote that establishes the precise-borders of International Waters!
Our boys were in territorial waters (which are considered international in this case) under the right of "innocent passage". Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels are given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order, or the security of the coastal state". Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. We weren't stationary - we were moving through into the Persian Gulf in accordance to the law, and by doing what they did, they directly threatened the safety of our men and our ship ON PURPOSE.

We should've blown 'em outta the water, hence why the helicopter went up. If Iran doesn't want us there, then perhaps they shouldn't have raised tensions by, yet again, sadly attempting a repeat of the time they captured 15 British sailors for no reason. Ahmadinejad's a polemic of the worst sort, and he's banking on the fact that this will stir up shit. Congratulations for buying into it lock, stock, and barrel, but I guess it really doesn't matter because we're the bad guys here, right, Shaman? :rolleyes:

.......but I guess it really doesn't matter because we're the bad guys here, right.........?

If it is meant by *we* (IOW, B*sh in his position in this government as a leader) that those in America are the *bad guys here*, in this latest incident, then i'd say "Yes".

Absolutely.

Your precious fucking Rightwing heroes....B*sh and his co-conspirators.....are very much the *bad guys* in this situation because THEY are the ones actively trying to exaggerate what happened (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval) and to amplify the situation in their attempt to incite a possible violent confrontation and --in the final analysis-- to create a situation that will lay the groundwork for beginning yet another war.

If it is meant by *we* (IOW, B*sh in his position in this government as a leader) that those in America are the *bad guys here*, in this latest incident, then i'd say "Yes".

Absolutely.

Your precious fucking Rightwing heroes....B*sh and his co-conspirators.....are very much the *bad guys* in this situation because THEY are the ones actively trying to exaggerate what happened (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval) and to amplify the situation in their attempt to incite a possible violent confrontation and --in the final analysis-- to create a situation that will lay the groundwork for beginning yet another war.
:rolleyes:

Truth be told, I'm not into playing games, FT. Those threats came from somewhere, and my magic 8 ball says that it's 'not fucking likely' we happened to have a recording of some Iranian chanting, "I am coming to you" and "You will explode after a few minutes" just in case THEY decided to "aggressively" approach (in a powerboat, no less) a NAVAL FLEET (after being warned, mind you) when our ships were operating in a legal fashion (with our final destination being the Persian Gulf).

All bullshit aside, is your contention here that they (the Iranians) didn't air that flagrant threat from off shore, a passing boat, or the powerboat itself????? Is that what you took outta the democracynow article? That's the only way we could've "amplified the situation", period.

If it is meant by *we* (IOW, B*sh in his position in this government as a leader) that those in America are the *bad guys here*, in this latest incident, then i'd say "Yes".

Absolutely.

Your precious fucking Rightwing heroes....B*sh and his co-conspirators.....are very much the *bad guys* in this situation because THEY are the ones actively trying to exaggerate what happened (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval) and to amplify the situation in their attempt to incite a possible violent confrontation and --in the final analysis-- to create a situation that will lay the groundwork for beginning yet another war.


They don't have to incite anything. If they'd wanted they could've blown them out of the water right then and there. What you & sham have yet to explain is if the admin had wanted an incident they had one gift wrapped, why didn't they take it? They are war-mongers after-all. :rolleyes:

My re-post from the other thread: Actually, if you read the transcript, Cosgriff doesn't really say the ships "the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats." But he DID say (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4116) "The behavior of the Iranian ships was, in my estimation, unnecessary, without due regard for safety of navigation and unduly provocative in the sense of the aggregate of their maneuvers, the radio call and the dropping of objects in the water....I take this incredibly seriously and I expect that commanding officers will successfully defend their ships and their crews at all times in this theater. It's important to remember we have been attacked by small high-speed boats in the Gulf, in the region -- the Cole -- and in the northern Gulf a few years ago. We have suffered casualties, and we take this deadly seriously."

The terrorists have tried this once before and it remains one of the few attack vectors available to them. The Iranians could secretly sponsor or fund such an attack and then claim ignorance. Knowledge of how close they can get without shots being fired is valuable information in planning such an attack. I am not so naive to think that there aren't many people out there that would love to see a US battleship on the bottom of the Arabian Sea. So I would agree with LF - Ron Paul does not score many points in my book by downplaying this threat. I believe the US acted with proper restraint in this incident. In fact, they could have easily fired off a warning shot or 2 and I wouldn't have faulted them.

My re-post from the other thread: Actually, if you read the transcript, Cosgriff doesn't really say the ships "the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats." But he DID say (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4116) "The behavior of the Iranian ships was, in my estimation, unnecessary, without due regard for safety of navigation and unduly provocative in the sense of the aggregate of their maneuvers, the radio call and the dropping of objects in the water....I take this incredibly seriously and I expect that commanding officers will successfully defend their ships and their crews at all times in this theater. It's important to remember we have been attacked by small high-speed boats in the Gulf, in the region -- the Cole -- and in the northern Gulf a few years ago. We have suffered casualties, and we take this deadly seriously."

The terrorists have tried this once before and it remains one of the few attack vectors available to them. The Iranians could secretly sponsor or fund such an attack and then claim ignorance. Knowledge of how close they can get without shots being fired is valuable information in planning such an attack. I am not so naive to think that there aren't many people out there that would love to see a US battleship on the bottom of the Arabian Sea. So I would agree with LF - Ron Paul does not score many points in my book by downplaying this threat. I believe the US acted with proper restraint in this incident. In fact, they could have easily fired off a warning shot or 2 and I wouldn't have faulted them.
Excellent post, Fluffer.

All bullshit aside, is your contention here that they (the Iranians) didn't air that flagrant threat from off shore, a passing boat, or the powerboat itself?????

Yes. Absolutely.

The military people themselves who were there have stated that the message they heard could very well have originated from a source other than the Iranians.

""a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."" (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval)

Is that what you took outta the democracynow article?

Yes.

(it was, BTW, an article from an investigative historian specializing in U.S. national security policy that was being reported about by Democracy Now.)

That's the only way we could've "amplified the situation", period.

What was being amplified (IOW, where the lying on the part of B*shCo comes in) was in the overt stressing (read; propagandizing) of how 'serious' the supposed 'confrontation' was.

It is just another transparent fucking sham ---just like the endless campaign of lies we saw being peddled by these same scurrilous sons-of-bitches when they fomented the Iraq war-- to drag the gullible populace in this country into more war in that repository of huge oil reserves, the Middle East.

wasn't this widely reported yesterday by the new york post http://www.nypost.com/seven/01142008/news/worldnews/filipino_monkey_may_be_behind_iran__us_b_60618.htm

and many others ( just do a search) as the work of the fillipino monkey.

January 14, 2008 -- A threatening radio message to U.S. warships which seemed to come from Iranian vessels swarming U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf might have come from a third party known as the "Filipino Monkey," according to a new report.

The U.S. Navy said yesterday in a press conference the incident could have been a "coincidence," and a Navy Times report said the threat -- "I am coming to you. You will explode," -- might not have come from the approaching ships, but from a "local heckler" who trolls the Persian Gulf known as the "Filipino Monkey."

"We don't know for sure where [the audio] came from," Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for 5th Fleet in Bahrain, told the Navy Times. "It could have been a shore station."

Yes. Absolutely.

The military people themselves who were there have stated that the message they heard could very well have originated from a source other than the Iranians.

""a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."" (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval)
Oy vey...I fuckin' knew it! You're unbelievable, FT. It's patently absurd in the extreme to think that, in some way, we WAITED FOR AN IRANIAN PATROL BOAT TO DROP SHIT IN THE WATER, COME CLOSE TO OUR SHIPS, AND DESREGARD OUR WARNINGS JUST SO WE COULD AIR THAT RECORDING (you know.....like, in case we needed something "concrete" to convince the world that a "war" with pisswater Iran was warranted. :rolleyes: ). If that recording was ours, then lemme ask you simple question: were we controlling the powerboat too, because if not (and I think it's more than obvious we weren't), then I'll have you know your "conspiracy" theory just lost it's lynchpin. In addition to that, were we controlling the boats that were passing by? If not, then I wanna see the registration for every ship in general proximity to us at 5 o'clock in the morning, and I'll guaran-fuckin'-tee you they were of Middle Eastern origin. Will Iran fork it over? Not likely.
What was being amplified (IOW, where the lying on the part of B*shCo comes in) was in the overt stressing (read; propagandizing) of how 'serious' the supposed 'confrontation' was.
This is just flat-out loony, FT. You don't think a boat that size has killed people before? Been a threat to our men? Damaged our ships? ::shakes head::
It is just another transparent fucking sham ---just like the endless campaign of lies we saw being peddled by these same scurrilous sons-of-bitches when they fomented the Iraq war-- to drag the gullible populace in this country into more war in that repository of huge oil reserves, the Middle East.
It's no surprise to me now why you think the way you do. This is a classic example.

Oy vey...I fuckin' knew it! You're unbelievable, FT. It's patently absurd in the extreme to think that, in some way, we WAITED FOR AN IRANIAN PATROL BOAT TO DROP SHIT IN THE WATER, COME CLOSE TO OUR SHIPS, AND DESREGARD OUR WARNINGS JUST SO WE COULD AIR THAT RECORDING....
Stick with Valium & the "soaps". Reality isn't quite as exciting as you'd prefer. :rolleyes:

*

“After passing the white objects, commanders on the USS Port Royal and its accompanying destroyer and frigate decided there was so little danger from the objects (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38886&sectionid=3510303) that they did not bother to radio other ships to warn them,” the officials said."

*

Hell.....even FAUX Noise is farther ahead-of-the-curve (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/01/15/fox_and_friends_finally_reporting_that_iranian_spe edboat_incident_was_not_as_it_was_initially_report ed.php#more), than you.........and, that's pretty-damned-bad. :rolleyes:

Yeah......it's called (by most, in "conservative"-circles) the inconvenience of facts! :rolleyes:

Yeah that'd be cool if you EVER posted any facts. Crazy web quotes written by people as fervently off the rails as you do not represent facts. Your facts always come from a group that exhibit a mutual masterbation of cyncial thinking - passing each others "facts" around to prove each other right.

You mean....as-opposed-to your Nationalistic-efforts to make everything an obvious attack against US (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/)??!!!

You should (probably) devote more time to soap-operas. Their effort at drama would be much-more fulfilling, for you......without the (eventual) negative-impact on everyone else! :rolleyes:

No!, as in I mean use a bit of common sense - nobody's eyes are closed to the fact that the US could & does use situations to it's own ends, and the approach of the US is not always full of gold - but you take it beyond the extreme of intelligent plausibility. You'll believe just about ANYTHING that supports your whacked out radical view. When faced with 2 choices - common sense vs radical BS - then we know that you will be like the cat slurping cream at the bowl of radical BS, no doubt soiling your pants with sheer joy. Intelligent people keep an open mind & sway towards common sense. That does not describe you.

Shaman - you are whats called a RADICAL - check it out.

ALL radicals (without exception) are short on brains nut jobs & you propgate that truth very nicely indeed.

Yeah that'd be cool if you EVER posted any facts. Crazy web quotes written by people as fervently off the rails as you do not represent facts. Your facts always come from a group that exhibit a mutual masterbation of cyncial thinking - passing each others "facts" around to prove each other right.

You'll believe just about ANYTHING that supports your whacked out radical view. When faced with 2 choices - common sense vs radical BS - then we know that you will be like the cat slurping cream at the bowl of radical BS, no doubt soiling your pants with sheer joy. Intelligent people keep an open mind & sway towards common sense. That does not describe you.

Shaman - you are whats called a RADICAL - check it out.

ALL radicals (without exception) are short on brains nut jobs & you propgate that truth very nicely indeed.
.....And, your's is a moderate's opinion, huh....including (of course) your bullet-proof factoids on ALL radicals? :rolleyes:

You're unbelievable, FT. It's patently absurd in the extreme to think that, in some way, we WAITED FOR AN IRANIAN PATROL BOAT TO DROP SHIT IN THE WATER, COME CLOSE TO OUR SHIPS, AND DESREGARD OUR WARNINGS JUST SO WE COULD AIR THAT RECORDING

Yes.....to posit that scenario would, I agree with you, be somewhat absurd.

But then, neither I nor anyone else here has hinted at or suggested anything to that effect.

Nothing.

N_O_T_H_I_N_G.

I simply pointed out to you that military people who were there have stated that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by.

What part of that is it that you cannot grasp?

Why do you think you know more about what happened than the military people who were actually there?!?

(you know.....like, in case we needed something "concrete" to convince the world that a "war" with pisswater Iran was warranted. :rolleyes: ).

The liars who run the White House (and who are on record as having stated their desire and intention to wage wars in the Middle East) do not need anything concrete. Far from it. All they need are a few more make-believe "incidents" like the one we're discussing here, and the macho Neanderthals in America who are ready to jump at any supposed provocation, (and you are quickly becoming the poster boy for that sort) will be eagerly clamoring for war..........{and even it later is revealed that said "incident" was a complete exaggeration and/or fabrication, their minds will probably not be changed}.

If that recording was ours, then lemme ask you simple question: were we controlling the powerboat too, because if not (and I think it's more than obvious we weren't), then I'll have you know your "conspiracy" theory just lost it's lynchpin. In addition to that, were we controlling the boats that were passing by?

I truly cannot imagine how poor your reading comprehension skills must be if you imagine that I am suggesting that the recording in question was "ours".

I have not suggested that. No one is saying anything of the kind.

Please do me a favor and read the following V_E_R_Y slowly......

""a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by.""

No one has suggested that "the recording was ours", and no one is suggesting that ""we were controlling the powerboat too"".

Get a grip man.

You don't think a boat that size has killed people before?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

Been a threat to our men?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

Damaged our ships?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

Unlike you, however, I can read and assimilate what the military personnel who were there are saying about what happened or did not happen.

.....And, your's is a moderate's opinion, huh....including (of course) your bullet-proof factoids on ALL radicals? :rolleyes:

Radicals, christian, muslim, political - they are all the same - small brains, short sighted. There's no difference between you and a religious radical - the only difference is the subject matter.

Radicals, christian, muslim, political - they are all the same - small brains, short sighted. There's no difference between you and a religious radical - the only difference is the subject matter.
If the only option is to join you loud-mouthed Neandrathals (with your magical ability to stay politics-free), we radicals will be fine where we are. :rolleyes:

I truly cannot imagine how poor your reading comprehension skills must be if you imagine that I am suggesting that the recording in question was "ours".

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up, 'cause either way, I wouldn't put it past ya.


Please do me a favor and read the following V_E_R_Y slowly......

"a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."

No one has suggested that "the recording was ours", and no one is suggesting that ""we were controlling the powerboat too"".
Okay, Einstein, then do me a favor, and tell me who you think played that recording. Oh, that's right.....you don't "know" and neither do I....:rolleyes:

Well, here's an exercise in deductive reasoning; let's say, for shits and giggles, those threats were aired from the Iranian shoreline AND another ship at the same time... So fucking what?!? The PATROL BOAT in question was governmentally operated. Given that fact alone, why was the PATROL BOAT in harmony with that recording if there's some sort of "conspiracy" in play here??? In short, it was the goddamned Iranian Government - end of story. That's irrefutable. You'd have to be a retard not to piece that one together.

My comprehension may be lacking, but with that said, WTF was your point?
Unlike you, however, I can read and assimilate what the military personnel who were there are saying about what happened or did not happen.
Well, kudos to you...

Too bad accurate reporting isn't your thing, Mr. Democracynow.

In short, it was the goddamned Iranian Government - end of story. That's irrefutable.

You seem to have missed something.

I'll try posting it yet again.


"a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."

My comprehension may be lacking....

To put it mildly.

Plus, there's this.............

January 14, 2008 -- A threatening radio message to U.S. warships which seemed to come from Iranian vessels swarming U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf might have come from a third party known as the "Filipino Monkey," according to a new report.

The U.S. Navy said yesterday in a press conference the incident could have been a "coincidence," and a Navy Times report said the threat -- "I am coming to you. You will explode," -- might not have come from the approaching ships, but from a "local heckler" who trolls the Persian Gulf known as the "Filipino Monkey."

You seem to have missed something.

I'll try posting it yet again.


"a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."
What's your major malfunction here, numbnuts? It doesn't matter. 2 and 2 isn't making 4 - end of story. This can be safely (and logically) deduced.

Case in point:
Plus, there's this.............

The U.S. Navy said yesterday in a press conference the incident could have been a "coincidence," and a Navy Times report said the threat -- "I am coming to you. You will explode," -- might not have come from the approaching ships, but from a "local heckler" who trolls the Persian Gulf known as the "Filipino Monkey."
Then why was the GOVERMENTALLY CONTROLED BOAT DROPPING SHIT IN THE WATER, CHARGING OUR FLEET (in harmony to the threats, no less), AND NOT RESPONDING TO HIS RADIO? Does that seriously make any sense to you?! Heckler, my ass. :rolleyes: Unless he was controlling the high-powered PA system and the patrol boat simultaneously (:rolleyes:), I'm not buyin' it. As a matter of fact, that's EXACTLY the kind of bullshit (sans any logic) that you and your ilk fantasize about being true to further indict us of wrongdoing.

I can only imagine the Navy PR machine issued that report to sound "diplomatic". They probably wanted accolades for acting in an appropriate (read; judicious) manner in light of the fact that no one was killed. Of course, if someone had been killed, then once again, I'm sure we'd hear the flip side of your defeatist and myopic argument: 4,000 dead and counting....

Change the fuckin' record, will ya? :rolleyes:

If the only option is to join you loud-mouthed Neandrathals (with your magical ability to stay politics-free), we radicals will be fine where we are. :rolleyes:

Radicals like yourself always have a self protecting mechanism that preserves their radicalism. A good example of that coming out is what you wrote above.

I'll try posting it yet again.


"a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."

Plus, there's this.............

The U.S. Navy said yesterday in a press conference the incident could have been a "coincidence," and a Navy Times report said the threat -- "I am coming to you. You will explode," -- might not have come from the approaching ships, but from a "local heckler" who trolls the Persian Gulf known as the "Filipino Monkey."

I'll try posting it yet again.


"a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by."

Plus, there's this.............

The U.S. Navy said yesterday in a press conference the incident could have been a "coincidence," and a Navy Times report said the threat -- "I am coming to you. You will explode," -- might not have come from the approaching ships, but from a "local heckler" who trolls the Persian Gulf known as the "Filipino Monkey."

What a load of tripe. Yet another Radical....

Any single tid-bit of news you trolled from the web that supports your crazy world view - however obscure - you will hold it high & then anything else - well thats all propganda.

These were Iranian speedboats buzzing around US ships - they were lucky not have gotten blown out the water. End of story....yet when it comes to Radicals - there always has to be more...a secret plot....a cunning subterfuge, get a life.

The campy "threatening" voice heard on the tapes is suspected to have been the Philipino Monkey (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/11/threatening-voice-from-iran-incident-may-be-famous-heckler/), a notorious radio heckler and prankster.