What's new

Yemeni Forces Destroy UAE Warship

Status
Not open for further replies.
False flag allegations.... a convenient way for some to explain away undesireable realities ;-)
so you claim this resolution was based on true incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

by the way if the missile could not even travel 30km then it was in class of kowsar or nasr ad those missile never ever needed any coastal RADAR to operate. So you guys just wanted increase your support for KSA and Co.
 
Last edited:
Iranian warships deployed off Yemen coast after US bombs Houthi targets

https://www.rt.com/news/362643-iran-warships-yemen-aden/

interesting.................
That was pre-planned. Nothing to do with this recent issue.

False flag allegations.... a convenient way for some to explain away undesireable realities ;-)
Do you mean the Houties really wanted to hit US ships? I don't see anyone in his right mind and in Houtis shoes would welcome more opponents.

And they are not even sure if the missile was intended for them:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/12/yemen-missiles-navy-ship/91955086/

It’s unclear if the Navy’s response protected the ship, or if the missile simply missed. No sailors were hurt, and the USS Mason was undamaged

‘Limited self-defense strikes’: US military destroys 3 ‘radar sites’ in Yemen

https://www.rt.com/usa/362582-yemen-radar-sites-airstrikes/


Yeah, right! "LIMITED" strikes, we had that shit already in Libya

So after false flag attack it was clear the Zionist Mafia is planning something!
All made up to help theyr saudi friends....
Maybe they want to distract from us elections campain.
Maybe they are opening next front, we will see whats next...

I find it hard to believe there were any radar sites left in Yemen after almost one year of KSA bombardment. If true, then I'm not sure what KSA pilots were doing besides killing people. If false, then what did US military destroy?

I love how wild these journalists' imagination is! Iran radar sites! :lol:

https://www.debka.com/article/25717/US-Tomahawks-destroy-Iran-s-radar-bases-in-Yemen

DEBKA files is a well know liar but this is really wild!
 
so you claim this resolution was based on true incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

by the way if the missile could not even travel 30km then it was in class of kowsar or nasr ad those missile never ever needed any coastal RADAR to operate. So you guys just wanted increase your support for KSA and Co.
I'm not talking about the Gulf of Tonkin obviously. And, I'm not "you guys' i.e. US. And I didn't claim anything. Besides, Tonkin was 2 august 1964 (just a tad older than I am), this is 2016 and it's like stocks: past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

People here 'demand' US proof that is was a real missile attack, with weapons specifics. If people here also claim a false flag op, then they too shall provide evidence.

That was pre-planned. Nothing to do with this recent issue.

Do you mean the Houties really wanted to hit US ships? I don't see anyone in his right mind and in Houtis shoes would welcome more opponents.

Well, see my previous comment to JEskandari. Perhaps there were some foreign guests that took care of the honors with the equipment they brought, possibly without consent. How would you know? Can you rule is out?
 
Last edited:
Eden???

1227px-Gulf_of_Aden_map.png


Original 1,540 tons Alvand class ship, with UK 114mm main gun (commissioned 1971/72).
Alvand_suez_canal.jpg
 
Last edited:
Admiral James Stavridis is a retired US navy officer and he had said a deadly confrontation will be coming with Iran very soon, most likely before the election if not shortly after.

You guys would have to search google for it since I can't post links.

What are you guy's thoughts on this?
 
More than enough to escort commercial ships against pirates.
Oh, no doubt, it's a fine vessel.

Admiral James Stavridis is a retired US navy officer and he had said a deadly confrontation will be coming with Iran very soon, most likely before the election if not shortly after.

You guys would have to search google for it since I can't post links.

What are you guy's thoughts on this?

James Stavridis, Retired Admiral, Is Being Vetted as Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/u...idis-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

In response:
“Well, let’s put it this way Brian, first of all you met me, on a good day I stand about 5 foot five and when they called me up and said hey, you are on the short list, I thought, you must be talking about my height. The other problem I have is it’s very tough to get Stavridis to fit on a bumper sticker. I think beyond any of that you should probably give the Clinton campaign and ask… I have never thought about a political career and I am quite happy at where I am at the moment”
—Admiral Stavridis on being vetted by Hillary Clinton for vice president
http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/07/19...vetted-by-hillary-clinton-for-vice-president/

Biography
http://www.usni.org/selected-writings-admiral-james-g-stavridis-us-navy

Admiral James Stavridis (Ret): A Deadly Confrontation Is Coming With Iran, If Not Immediately Then After The Election
Oct 14, 2016
The next step in this is going to be the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it’s coming, it’s going to be a maritime confrontation and if it doesn’t happen immediately, I’ll bet you a dollar it’s going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected.”
—Admiral Stavridis on why a deadly confrontation with Iran is coming sooner or later

https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/10/1...n-if-not-immediately-then-after-the-election/

Earlier on:

Ret. Admiral Stavridis: ‘You Can Drive a Truck Through’ Holes in Iran Deal
July 29, 2015

Retired Admiral James Stavridis rejected key talking points used by the Obama administration to sell the Iran nuclear deal in an interview Wednesday.

Admiral Stavridis, who served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander and is now Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe the deal may not catch Iranian nuclear cheating if it occurs.

“I think the top [issue] is the verification regime, which is starting to roughly resemble Swiss cheese,” Stavridis said. “You can drive a truck through some of the holes. I am very concerned about that.”

Defenders of the deal, such as Secretary of State John Kerry, have insisted the deal’s verification measures are airtight.

Stavridis expressed concern over Iran’s side deal about inspections with the IAEA, which may allow Iran to take its own environmental samples from suspicious sites.

“We need to have access to it and understand it,” Stavridis said about the side deal. “Reportedly, it puts Iran in the position of actually procuring samples as opposed to having them taken by the IAEA.”

Stavridis said his biggest concern with the deal is its gift of hundreds of billions in economic activity and previously frozen assets to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.

“The biggest problem here is the airdrop of $100 to $150 billion into their economy, which is only $350 billion to begin with,” Stavridis said. “That’s like the U.S. getting a $4 trillion insertion of capital. That’s the teeth of the alligator you just heard about.”

Under the nuclear deal, Iran would gain access to foreign businesses and key financial networks, which will generate the steady revenue necessary to revitalize Iran’s military and allies.

Obama administration officials have said that the deal’s concessions to Iran are tolerable because the only alternative is a ground war.

Stavridis dismissed this rhetoric as a false choice.

“I think the U.S. still can drive some degree of sanctions” without a deal, Stavridis said. “There are cyber options to pursue. There are clandestine options to pursue. There are Special Forces options to pursue. I reject a notion that the choice is simply between this deal and going to war.”

The U.S. public is increasingly wary of the Iran nuclear deal as the congressional review period drags on. A CNN poll released Tuesday found that a majority of Americans want Congress to reject the deal.
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...can-drive-a-truck-through-holes-in-iran-deal/
 
USS Mason Fires Missiles at Possible Missile Attack
The destroyer USS Mason fired defensive countermeasures in response to what may have been incoming missiles, a defense official said . The ship had been attacked two times before in the past week, which triggered retaliatory strikes against radars used by Houthi rebels in those attacks. The Pentagon is investigating the incident.

"A U.S. Strike Group transiting international waters in the Red Sea detected possible inbound missile threats and deployed appropriate defensive measures," said a U.S. defense official. "Post event assessment is ongoing. All U.S. warships and vessels in the area are safe."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/missiles-fired-us-ship-off-yemen/story?id=42832766

ادعای حمله موشکی مجدد به ناوشکن آمریکایی در سواحل یمن
http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1...له-موشکی-مجدد-به-ناوشکن-آمریکایی-در-سواحل-یمن
 
Admiral James Stavridis is a retired US navy officer and he had said a deadly confrontation will be coming with Iran very soon, most likely before the election if not shortly after.

You guys would have to search google for it since I can't post links.

What are you guy's thoughts on this?
he is retired and retard.
 
Ok. It seems whoever is firing the missiles is using Yemen's old arsenal:

Analysis: Mystery of the Red Sea missiles continues
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
14 October 2016


p1686062.jpg
There has been widespread suspicion - but no confirmation as yet - that an Iranian-supplied anti-ship missile systems such as the one pictured were used in the recent attacks in the Red Sea. (Iranian Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics)

ANALYSIS
It is still unclear what missiles and target acquisition systems the Yemeni rebels are using. AFP cited an unidentified senior defence official as saying they are believed to have a type of the Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship missiles. That could be interpreted as a reference to Iran's Noor version of the C-802, which has a range of 120 km.

However, that assertion was undermined by an earlier report that they had a far shorter range. A US official told Reuters that one missile travelled more than 24 n miles (44.5 km) before coming down in the sea. That is a close fit for the C-801, which has a stated range of 42 km and was acquired by the Yemeni Navy in the 1990s.

So getting back to your question @BlueInGreen, the missiles claimed to have been fired at US navy vessels are not Iranian made.I would argue it probably is done by former government forces to pull US into the conflict.
 
Dude Pakistan need to make a deal with these arabs who can't fight for shit.
I don't know, have them fund an aircraft carrier for us so we can join the war in yemen....
 
Dude Pakistan need to make a deal with these arabs who can't fight for shit.
I don't know, have them fund an aircraft carrier for us so we can join the war in yemen....
Why would you need an aircraft carrier? You could use KSA's air bases if you ever choose to meddle in this issue.

But I don't see why you would?
 
Why would you need an aircraft carrier? You could use KSA's air bases if you ever choose to meddle in this issue.

But I don't see why you would?
Money talks.
Aircraft carrier is the way to go in this scenario.
 
Ok. It seems whoever is firing the missiles is using Yemen's old arsenal:

Analysis: Mystery of the Red Sea missiles continues
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
14 October 2016


p1686062.jpg
There has been widespread suspicion - but no confirmation as yet - that an Iranian-supplied anti-ship missile systems such as the one pictured were used in the recent attacks in the Red Sea. (Iranian Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics)

ANALYSIS
It is still unclear what missiles and target acquisition systems the Yemeni rebels are using. AFP cited an unidentified senior defence official as saying they are believed to have a type of the Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship missiles. That could be interpreted as a reference to Iran's Noor version of the C-802, which has a range of 120 km.

However, that assertion was undermined by an earlier report that they had a far shorter range. A US official told Reuters that one missile travelled more than 24 n miles (44.5 km) before coming down in the sea. That is a close fit for the C-801, which has a stated range of 42 km and was acquired by the Yemeni Navy in the 1990s.

So getting back to your question @BlueInGreen, the missiles claimed to have been fired at US navy vessels are not Iranian made.I would argue it probably is done by former government forces to pull US into the conflict.
Interesting theory. But no evidence. Which makes your theory just a good/bad as the ones claiming noor or c802

Sipri data shows 25 c801 delivered in 1995 for 3 huangfen facs. So, that is a shipbased application, not a landbased system.

This is interesting in that the huang fen is a chinese copy of the russian osa fac, which normally comes with styx missile i.e. Silkworm.

This missile is p15termit from russia or chinese clone and has 80km range.... so why one would re-equip boats with shorter range missiles....???

And yemen army is listing p15 termit in its inventory ... coastal defence missile.

So imho a more plausible culprit than navy c801....

If old yemen military equipment were used, that is. Which i doubt as apparently rebels themselves claimed iranian missile (i have yet to see verification of this though)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom