world

U.S. Navy ship fires on boat off Dubai, killing 1

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

Someone with a big gun tells you to stop, it would be the smart thing to do.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Did Obama have Eric Holder read them their rights first?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The U.S. crew repeatedly attempted to warn the vessel’s operators to turn away from their deliberate approach.

How did they warn the vessel? I wouldn't be surprised if we end up finding out that they shot at the pleasure boat without any warning.

How would the US feel if a Russian or Chinese navy ship fire at and killed an American off the US coast?

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Goldman: How would the US feel if a Russian or Chinese navy ship fire at and killed an American off the US coast?

Why not wait until we learn more about the case before you get into your favorite "How would you feel if..." arguments?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

The article tells us they were Indian citizens, GS.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Who cares where they were or their intent. They were warned, Does anyone believe there are no bilingual people on the USA ship? "Don't tread on me." It is about time the bullying stops.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The "Navy Ship" is a civilian ship with a mostly civilian crew. It has a military protective detail. It was a 50 cal machine gun and if they let it get too close they would be unable to fire on it. Oh it they get too close they might not have been able to stop them. It could of been a suicide craft armored enough to take 50 cal fire.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@noriyosan

Who cares where they were or their intent. They were warned, Does anyone believe there are no bilingual people on the USA ship?

Well, I care a bit. So do their spouses, children and parents I'd imagine. And as for "bilingual people" on the ship, I very much doubt there was any talking involved.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Shoot first, think later.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Iucabrasi, not a question of knowing the others fellows language. There are international signals known to all mariners.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Verbal warnings (in English as required by maritime law) over bridge-to-bridge radio (which the fishing vessel should have had), same warnings over loudspeakers, five short blasts on the ship's whistle, flashing lights, flares, etc. all in a geo-political hotspot rife with pirates to boot. What else did you want the Rappahannock to do?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I would have done the same thing that those sailors on board the Rappahannock. If you are told to stop and after all warnings you still speeding towards my ship, you are asking for it brother.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So if I get a big gun and take it out on a raft in the ocean can I start shooting other ships too?

What language where the warnings in?

Whose territorial water is it?

Can a Russian ship pull into the Hudson River, yell out something in Russian and then start blasting away.

The fisherman were murdered.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

So if I get a big gun and take it out on a raft in the ocean can I start shooting other ships too?

Yes, if your raft is registered and flying the flag of a recognized nation and you can demonstrate that it's in self defense. ROE previous to the USS Cole incident was don't shoot until fired upon or attacked. Now it's shoot first if the right threat parameters/conditions are met.

What language where the warnings in?

English, naturally, which is the language in which international maritime communication is to be conducted.

Whose territorial water is it?

It doesn't matter. A ship has the right to defend itself from a perceived threat.

Can a Russian ship pull into the Hudson River, yell out something in Russian and then start blasting away.

No, they would have to yell in English.

The fisherman were murdered.

Sure, only if you consider death-by-cop to be murder. For batteries-release to have been authorize the fisherman would have had to come inside the ship's stand-off/engagement zone which is pretty damn close considering they were in open ocean. Imagine a movie theater that's totally empty except for you. If someone came in and sat down in a seat next to you I think it's pretty safe to say that he chose that seat intentionally. It's unfortunate that these fisherman are dead but with the disregard for maritime rules of navigation and obvious lack of required communication skills/equipment they had no buisness being where they were.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The local folk here all KNOW the US navy patrols these waters, they know the US navy is there to make sure the oil gets in and out of these ports safely so the Arabs, most of them support the US and the US navy, but as we know, all it takes it for a handful of AlQaeda terrorists to get lucky, close enough to a big, juicy American etc..oil tanker, shoot, explode your dingy into it as the USS Cole was attacked and then every Al Qaeda homepage around the world will be blaring Alah Akuhbar etc..god is great and we got to punch them Christian invaders right in the POLITICAL eye, so can we blame these guys for shooting this small water craft getting too close to them?? HELL NO! Maybe they were just on some kind of test run, most likely they will try again, maybe against purely civilian ships next time, and we will be reading about hostages or suicidal terrorists that blow up American Navy ships that just wanted to be nice and friendly to little speed boats that refuse to stop to American warnings?? Is that what some idiot fools want to read in the next head lines?? I for one, say good job! Wish the American Navy did this with all of the drug fools from Latin America, just blow up right out of the water!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

USNinJapan2

"So if I get a big gun and take it out on a raft in the ocean can I start shooting other ships too?" Yes, if your raft is registered and flying the flag of a recognized nation and you can demonstrate that it's in self defense. ROE previous to the USS Cole incident was don't shoot until fired upon or attacked. Now it's shoot first if the right threat parameters/conditions are met.

Dont you mean when a US vessel, person or whatever feels threatened its shoot first and sort out the details later.....

"Whose territorial water is it?" It doesn't matter. A ship has the right to defend itself from a perceived threat.

It occured in United Arab Emerates territorial waters and they are now investigating the incident.

"What language where the warnings in?" English, naturally, which is the language in which international maritime communication is to be conducted.

And that is assuming that those on the boat actually spoke English and could understand the warnings. Yes the international maritime language is English, but we are talking about a small 30ft coastal style fishing vessel. Not an international vessel. Chances are these guys did not speak a word of English and got shot by trigger happy soldiers. I bet if you went out into the middle of Tokyo Bay and stopped a small 30 ft fishing boat those on board would be lucky to speak a word of English either.

Sure, only if you consider death-by-cop to be murder. For batteries-release to have been authorize the fisherman would have had to come inside the ship's stand-off/engagement zone which is pretty damn close considering they were in open ocean.

Death by cop lol. Lets look at the situation you have a confined area with many many vessels operating in it. The area is near the main US base and also numerous fishing harbors. The fishing vessel was moving at high speed (presumably heading to its fishing grounds or from its fishing grounds) and it got to close to the US vessel. The US vessel issued warnings (sounds like they where not understood), the US vessel then shot at the boat. What about warning shots? Nah lets go for the kill shot first hey....

Imagine a movie theater that's totally empty except for you. If someone came in and sat down in a seat next to you I think it's pretty safe to say that he chose that seat intentionally.

Very poor analogy, you expect people to believe that the sea was empty except for these two vessels? Not correct there sorry.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

It's unfortunate that these fisherman are dead but with the disregard for maritime rules of navigation and obvious lack of required communication skills/equipment they had no buisness being where they were.

What a poor example. These men are dead because of nervous US troops nothing more. You go to ANY port in the world and you will see fishing and other vessels manouvering around bigger vessels. In my home country when l go fishing you constantly see small recreational fishing boats manouvering around bigger vessels as they move along the channels and most of these small recreational vessels wouldnt even have their radio turned on to hear a warning. Now imagine this in a foreign country where english isnt spoken whats the chances your warnings would be heard let alone understood.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

" In my home country when l go fishing you constantly see small recreational fishing boats manouvering around bigger vessels as they move along the channels"

Cletus, the article states the incident happened 10 miles (15 kilometers) off the coast of Dubai.

If this wasn't suicide by cop it was a Darwin short-list, plain and simple.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Cletus: shoot first and sort out the details later.....

Actually I think the warnings came first....but if your imagination is more satisfying then by all means, go for it,

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Madverts

Cletus, the article states the incident happened 10 miles (15 kilometers) off the coast of Dubai.

And? So you think small fishing boats do not operate out that far? You realise that 15 km is the distance of the shore that some of the manmade island reach out in this very area? So the US vessel was actually fairly close to shore and there would have been many many small vessels in the area no doubt.

If this wasn't suicide by cop it was a Darwin short-list, plain and simple.

I will ask again, English warnings where not working, did they fire warning shots? Or did they just put a burst into the boat?

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

As usual some JT reader comes along and gets opinionated, sending everyone scuttling onto opposing sides without waiting for the facts to emerge. A few wise readers hold their fingers above the keyboard.

In the next few days some of us may be in a position to say "I told you so!" Others will probably fall silent.

That such an incident is reported like this shows a) the very unusual nature of it, and b) the tension in the area right now with the screws being ratcheted up by both Iran and the West.

We had the USS Cole incident, and one of Japan's supertankers was hit by a suicide bomb boat not too long ago. The attack on Mumbai was lauched from speedboats from Pakistan. On high alert, everyone must be rethinking the rules of engagement about now.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Time for another war!

Election time's coming up soon!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"I will ask again, English warnings where not working, did they fire warning shots? Or did they just put a burst into the boat?"

I'm thinking you're looking pretty desperate to make this an anti-US rant, when all the information we are getting is that the Navy acted in accordance with navy force protection procedures, in a region that is rampant with suicide attacks against western interests. I doubt anyone aboard that ship has forgotten the USS Cole attack in a similar manner.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"The local fishing boat had more of a right to be there then the US ship."

So this is an excuse to speed towards a US military vessel on a collision course? Ok...

I'm wondering how long it will be before you start justifying terror atrocities in this manner, simply because westerners "had less right being there" than the the terrorists.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Madverts

So this is an excuse to speed towards a US military vessel on a collision course? Ok...

Lol, Madverts have you ever driven a boat before? There are times that you actually go near other vessels for numerous reasons. Just because the vessel has USN printed on the side doesnt make it any more special than any other boat on the waters. I bet you go to any port in any country and you would see similar actions happen numerous times a day. The only exception is it was a USN ship in the Mideast so everyone automatically jumps to the terrorist conclusion. Not every person in the mid east is a terrorist set on blowing you up you realise?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Now imagine this in a foreign country where english isnt spoken whats the chances your warnings would be heard let alone understood.

English is an official language of India......

The local fishing boat had more of a right to be there then the US ship.

Actually NeverSubmit chances are the US military ships had more of a right to be there considering that Indian fishing ship was within UAE EEZ.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If they are found to be innocent fishermen who didnt understand the warnings then l hope their families sue the USN and the crew that killed them face murder charges.

The crew aboard the Navy ship sent out repeated warnings, including radio calls, flashing lights, lasers and ultimately warning shots from a 50-caliber machine gun. When the boat failed to heed the warnings, the crew was ordered to open fire with the 50-caliber gun.

I don't know about you Cletus but that sounds like the US Navy did all they could in terms of warnings before using lethal force.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Noliving

The crew aboard the Navy ship sent out repeated warnings, including radio calls, flashing lights, lasers and ultimately warning shots from a 50-caliber machine gun. When the boat failed to heed the warnings, the crew was ordered to open fire with the 50-caliber gun. I don't know about you Cletus but that sounds like the US Navy did all they could in terms of warnings before using lethal force.

Care to provide links to where those details can be found because not one of the pieces on this story l have read mention lasers, warning shots or flashing lights.

Interesting because now the Indian government is getting involved and saying it plans action over the death too. Maybe this will go the same way as the case of the 2 Italian marines being tried for killing an Indian fisherman last year.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Care to provide links to where those details can be found because not one of the pieces on this story l have read mention lasers, warning shots or flashing lights.

Title of article: US vessel fires on boat in Gulf, killing one and injuring three

worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/16/12769508-us-vessel-fires-on-boat-in-gulf-killing-one-and-injuring-three?lite

Interesting because now the Indian government is getting involved and saying it plans action over the death too. Maybe this will go the same way as the case of the 2 Italian marines being tried for killing an Indian fisherman last year.

They got to do something to placate the Indian public.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Noliving,

Thanks for the link, strange that not one other news outlet is picking up on those points though. Only nbc...

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

" You and your alter egos SuperLib and Ben. So please continue the good work of defending the US military regardless of its actions...."

I have a habit of defending the US when it's mindless lashing out like yours once again in this instance. I've also been pretty critical of the US when they do something dumb.

Jump up and down all you like, the information available at the minute is that this boat speeded towards a US navy vessel, ignored all the warnings that were given as per navy policy, and where finally fired upon. Unless the fundamentals of this story changes radically, there is no angle for a rant about America as far as I can see......

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A split-second Google search brought this from CNN among others:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/16/world/meast/persian-gulf-shooting/

It mentions warning shots and a series of nonlethal, preplanned responses to warn the vessel before resorting to lethal force.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It can be hard to find the answer to a question when you are not really looking for it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Thanks for the link, strange that not one other news outlet is picking up on those points though. Only nbc...

Well NY Times has an article that mentions warning shots were fired before giving the order to use lethal force.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes and the US military machine has never lied....

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Ben jack,

Ah CNN, NBC. Now there are a couple of truly reliable media sources right there...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Cletus

I'd figured you'd treat anything out of MSNBC as the gospel. Hell they hate the US military almost as much as you...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I suppose if they shouted in English and Arabic would Indian people have understood? Not all Indian people understand English.

This is what happens when you assume everyone and everything is a threat. Of course the way the world is at the moment I suppose they have no other option but to think that way. Still, very sad that, as it appears so far, innocents are killed by mistake.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

USNinJapan2,

Lol for the record and just so u know l don't hate the US military.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Ah CNN, NBC. Now there are a couple of truly reliable media sources right there...

Well here's aljazeera, Anyone in particular you want? Because every news source seems to be indicating the same thing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/2012716163648139556.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cletus, from what I read to open fire was a good call. This is not a proper Navy ship it is a oil tanker really. The "big" gun was a 50 cal, something the infantry carry about in the field. One this is in a potential war zone and attacks have happened before. Two every effort was made to warn them. It is not a friendly act to approach a ship at high speed. About not hating the US Navy you can fool me. What you have written is outside of the pail. Before you are so critical should wait for the findings of the inquiry.

Me I am critical of some of the basing on Okinawa but think the US Navy is top rate. Have trained with them and they are very professional. Everything the Maritime Self Defense Force has become is due to our close relationship with the US Navy. I get carried away with my Okinawa postings but remember am referring to Marines and you know what the fleet thinks about them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Cletus, I believe that your description of the events went something like "shoot first, ask questions later." May I ask what your source was?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 06:52PM JST Care to provide links to where those details can be found because not one of the pieces on this story l have read mention lasers, warning shots or flashing lights.

This shooting is still under investigation and nobody in the outside knows all the facts. The video and the transcript of the entire incident should be released by the U.S. goverment. The US Navy on Tuesday claimed that warning shots were fired before the Indian fishermen were targeted by the guards on board its ship USNS Rappahannock off the Dubai coast on Monday. Attempts to warn the fast approaching boat were made-including firing warning shots. Indian goverment is demanding clear factual explanation of the incident.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib

Cletus, I believe that your description of the events went something like "shoot first, ask questions later." May I ask what your source was?

The source was the people who survived the attack and the Indian ambassador to the UAE thanks for asking. Apparently they are reporting that there was no warning what so ever from the ship before they opened fire. So whose telling the truth and who isnt. The US is saying there was warnings and those on the receiving end say there wasnt.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Alrighty. We'll just go ahead and forget the fact that you didn't know anything about that when you wrote your original post. Minor detail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus

You're free to dismiss this as biased but here's the play-by-play as reported by the Rappahannock and USCENTCOM.

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/documents/usns-rappahannock-shooting-incident

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib

Alrighty. We'll just go ahead and forget the fact that you didn't know anything about that when you wrote your original post. Minor detail.my in

Lol good response, but let me say this. My questions and original doubts regarding this where written prior to the statement about the US ship not issuing warnings but they where fairly accurate and prudent in the end now werent they. Just wondering if when this is finally concluded and the facts all come out if you will be man enough to admit you where wrong and to apologise for bad mouthing me? Highly doubt it but you never know

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

USNinJapan2

Cletus You're free to dismiss this as biased but here's the play-by-play as reported by the Rappahannock and USCENTCOM. http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/documents/usns-rappahannock-shooting-incident

Thanks for the link, makes very interesting reading, just a couple of problems that spring to mind though. The US claims the shooting took place approximately 25km off the coast of the UAE SSW of Jebel Ali, yet the UAE investigation shows the shooting occurred nearer the mouth of the Jebel Ali harbor 20 odd km away to the NNE. The US report says that they fired on the vessel when it was on the starboard side, 100 meters from the ship yet it wasnt until after the fishing vessel comes to a stop did the USN vessel increase speed from its 3-5 knots.

No doubt the USN will find fault lays with the fishing vessel. But it will be interesting to see the outcome of the UAE investigation which will be more impartial lm thinking....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites