Jim Martin Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Heard it on the radio on the way to work. Per the radio report, a US cargo ship "chartered" by the USN opened fire on a small boat which approached too closely in the canal, killing one person. Report said that it is common for small boats to swarm larger cargo vessels, attempting to sell various goods. The ship reportedly gave warnings in Arabic over their PA system, and fired warning shots prior to opening fire on the boat in question. Anyone have further details on this? How would a civilian ship under charter by USN be armed?
shep854 Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 According to the report on Military.com, there was a Navy detachment aboard. I presume it was the same idea as the detachments that manned guns aboard merchies in WWII.
Jim Martin Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Is the Canal considered Egyptian territorial waters? Could this be used as a pretext to ban US shipping from the Canal? What are the international treaty provisions and conventions regarding transit? Not that I really think Egypt would attempt to ban US shipping, they get too much money from us...
Gunguy Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I want to know what they had for guns. This is a great story.
BP Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 US Navy Confirms Suez Canal Shooting By PAUL SCHEMMThe Associated PressTuesday, March 25, 2008; 7:21 AM CAIRO, Egypt -- An American cargo ship under contract to the U.S. Navy opened fire on a small Egyptian boat while moving through the Suez Canal, the U.S. military said Tuesday in a statement. Egyptian authorities said at least one man was killed, but the U.S. said it had no reports of casualties. The Global Patriot, which was under short term charter to the navy's Military Sealift Command, entered the canal from the Red Sea at Suez after dark Monday when it was approached by several small boats, according to both U.S. and Egyptian officials. The U.S. Navy is very careful about the activities of small boats near their war ships ever since the 2000 suicide attack by a motor boat on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen killed 17 sailors. A U.S. Navy security team was aboard the cargo ship. "The boats were hailed and warned by a native Arabic speaker using a bullhorn to warn them to turn away. A warning flare was then fired," said a statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo. "One small boat continued to approach the ship and received two sets of warning shots 20-30 yards in front of the bow." The statement added that "All shots were accounted for as they entered the water." It also said that "initial reports indicate that no casualties were sustained on either vessel." An Egyptian security official at the canal, however, said that after the warning shots, a man was shot dead in the small boat and that the three other men with him were wounded. The head of the union of seamen in Suez, Abbas al-Amrikani, told The Associated Press by telephone that the body of the man, Mohammed Fouad, went to the hospital morgue before being transferred to the Ibrahim Nafie mosque ahead of burial. "We are praying over his the body right now," al-Amrikani said over audible sounds of prayer. "I saw the body. The bullet entered his heart and went out the other side." He added that Fouad was 27-years-old and a father of three, including a 6-month-old girl. The Egyptian government did not immediately issue official comment on the affair. Small boats selling cigarettes and other products often swarm the civilian ships moving through the canal. These waterborne merchants know not to approach military vessels but the "Global Patriot" looked like a civilian vessel, said the security official, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. "We are very conscious of being in heavily trafficked areas and we as professional mariners try to keep people from getting too close," Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Cmdr. Lydia Robertson told The Associated Press by phone from Bahrain. "Our team did take the appropriate steps to take those measured steps to warn the vessels that were getting too close." Robertson, who noted that a Navy security team was on the vessel, said that the same rules of engagement applied for war ships as for those under contract. Egyptian officials confirmed that the ship was now continuing its journey through the canal and expected to arrive at Port Said near the Mediterranean by nightfall. The "Global Patriot" is registered to the New York-based Global Container Lines and, according to the company Web site, the vessel trades between the United States, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the East Africa. About 7.5 percent of world sea trade passes through the canal, which at its narrowest is 120 yards wide. The canal is a major source of foreign currency for Egypt. _____ Associated Press Writer Maggie Michael contributed to this report. © 2008 The Associated Press
Ken Estes Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 ....The statement added that "All shots were accounted for as they entered the water." It also said that "initial reports indicate that no casualties were sustained on either vessel." An Egyptian security official at the canal, however, said that after the warning shots, a man was shot dead in the small boat and that the three other men with him were wounded..... Sailors + guns = bad news I wonder what the accounting method was?
Marek Tucan Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 All shots were accounted for as they entered the water. Isn't that a misquote of "Make 'em count"?
Josh Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I wonder if such procedures now include video taping the incident for just such accountability. The weapon type isn't specified; I was kinda assuming something along the lines of an M-14 or M-240. If it was just a rifle then individual rounds wouldn't be hard to track.
Jim Martin Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 I wonder if such procedures now include video taping the incident for just such accountability. The weapon type isn't specified; I was kinda assuming something along the lines of an M-14 or M-240. If it was just a rifle then individual rounds wouldn't be hard to track. Yep, a crew served would require modifications to the ship--Ma Deuce or chaingun.
shep854 Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Hm...All shots into the water; man shot dead through heart, two wounded...Dockside justice for screwing up? Trying to gin up an incident?
DKTanker Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) Hm...All shots into the water; man shot dead through heart, two wounded...Dockside justice for screwing up? Trying to gin up an incident?You're just too cynical. Our resident retired Marine officer has it right, he always does, ask him. Edited March 26, 2008 by DKTanker
Josh Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Occum's razor: seems most likely they were just killed by the detatchment, either intentionally or unintentionally. Seem odd that all three people where hit and the detatchment seems to have reported the exact opposite. M-240/249 covering two wide an arc? Seems unlikely you could accidently hit three people with rifle fire unless they are issued full auto rifles which I rather doubt...I always seem to see M-14s in stead of M-16/4 derivatives. Is it just for increased range and penetration on the open ocean or does the Navy just get really old hand me downs? Or have they standardized on 7.62x51?
Cookie Monster Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 It seems that the small boat mistook the ship for a civilian ship and thus no compulsions to stay away from the boat exists. I am sure that next time that the US Navy charter a civilian boat for military matters, it will have some method that this is a ship under military service and thus all requirements of minimum distance would apply.
Jim Martin Posted March 26, 2008 Author Posted March 26, 2008 It seems that the small boat mistook the ship for a civilian ship and thus no compulsions to stay away from the boat exists. I am sure that next time that the US Navy charter a civilian boat for military matters, it will have some method that this is a ship under military service and thus all requirements of minimum distance would apply. Uhhh, it appears that other small boats mistook it for a civilian ship but were capable of understanding the directions FROM A NATIVE ARABIC SPEAKER TO STAY THE F*** AWAY OR THEY'D BE SHOT. The other boats were also apparently capable of understanding the significance of warning shots placed near their boats. Stupid hurts.
gnocci Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Uhhh, it appears that other small boats mistook it for a civilian ship but were capable of understanding the directions FROM A NATIVE ARABIC SPEAKER TO STAY THE F*** AWAY OR THEY'D BE SHOT. The other boats were also apparently capable of understanding the significance of warning shots placed near their boats.So they were shot. Ok. But then why they say "all accounted shots in the water" and stuff? Sort of shooting themselves in the foot... Errr...
Ken Estes Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 You're just too cynical. Our resident retired Marine officer has it right, he always does, ask him.If you had asked, I'd point to my last two posts in this thread, where I correct or eat my previous statements.
Jim Martin Posted March 26, 2008 Author Posted March 26, 2008 So they were shot. Ok. But then why they say "all accounted shots in the water" and stuff? Sort of shooting themselves in the foot... Errr... Because it's in fact a big coverup by the USN that in fact what happens whenever a ship with a USN security detachment goes through the Canal, it's routine procedure to use the locals for target practice. No, really. The captain of the ship declares weapons-free, and the sailors have a contest to see how many Egyptians they can kill. I'm not kidding. Really.
gnocci Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Because it's in fact a big coverup by the USN that in fact what happens whenever a ship with a USN security detachment goes through the Canal, it's routine procedure to use the locals for target practice. No, really. The captain of the ship declares weapons-free, and the sailors have a contest to see how many Egyptians they can kill. I'm not kidding. Really. Errr... Did they shot him or not?
Cookie Monster Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Uhhh, it appears that other small boats mistook it for a civilian ship but were capable of understanding the directions FROM A NATIVE ARABIC SPEAKER TO STAY THE F*** AWAY OR THEY'D BE SHOT. The other boats were also apparently capable of understanding the significance of warning shots placed near their boats. Stupid hurts. That boat may not be Arabic speaking people. As for the warning shots, we will have to see in the follow up investigations that warning shots were given. If not, then the US Navy need to reevaluate its methods of protecting its civilian ships.
Marek Tucan Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 If not, then the US Navy need to reevaluate its methods of protecting its civilian ships. Agree. It is unthinkable of military ship to rely on few handheld firearms - I suggest developping a little universal ASP-30/Mk19/M2HB mount that can be quickly fastened to your typical cargo ship's deck. Oh, and similar mini-Hedgehog omnidirectional bomb launcher
gnocci Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Agree. It is unthinkable of military ship to rely on few handheld firearms - I suggest developping a little universal ASP-30/Mk19/M2HB mount that can be quickly fastened to your typical cargo ship's deck. Oh, and similar mini-Hedgehog omnidirectional bomb launcher Great, so next time they'll go back from "all shots in the water, i swear" to "it was an F-14, i swear"
Jeff Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 We have two conflicting stories. One side says they have bodies, the other says they can account for their shots. It will take some forensics to figure out the truth. Having said that, since when does the truth matter in that part of the world, "death to the infidels!"
yak_v Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 We have two conflicting stories. One side says they have bodies, the other says they can account for their shots. It will take some forensics to figure out the truth. Having said that, since when does the truth matter in that part of the world, "death to the infidels!" I don't understand why half the board is trying to make it out to be a big conspiracy? So three idiots were shot for not listening to instructions... BFD... Trying to create a big conspiracy out of it is just stupid. Vladimir
DKTanker Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 We have two conflicting stories. One side says they have bodies, the other says they can account for their shots. It will take some forensics to figure out the truth. Having said that, since when does the truth matter in that part of the world, "death to the infidels!"Apparently Admiral Cosgriff, Cmd US 5th Fleet, has conceded that the warning shots did in fact kill an Egyptian. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/26/...dent/index.html
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now