U.S. Navy Shot At By Iran?

U.S. Navy Shot At By Iran?

news.yahoo.com

The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said it had no information to substantiate a market rumor that Iran had fired at a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf.

"Navy has nothing to substantiate that report right now,"a Navy official said. "At this juncture, there is no validity to it."

"We have no information at this time that indicates any incident taking place," said White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

NYMEX crude oil futures shot up more than than $5 to trade above $68 a barrel on rumors about Iran, traders said.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com

[edit on 3/27/2007 by digitalassassin]

I just came across this. When I read it I thought to myself, why even publish the article if they were not shot at? It makes no sense at all to me.

Between this and Blair saying that they are going to move in to a "Different Phase" regarding the hostage stand-off It seems things are rapidly deteriorating in the region. Is it possible we could be seeing the start of a new war? I mean if this is not how they start, how do they?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3/27/2007 by digitalassassin]

the reason to post it would be to stop the rumors that hit the market. Those rumors can drive the market up or down so ensuring that the rumors are corrected or confirmed is somewhat important.

that rumor triggered stops, orders and all sorts of things in the markets, and from what I just saw there would be a dollar selloff against most currencies if it is confirmed.

I guess that does make sense. They lie about getting shot at so oil stays cheap. But how can they just let Iran shoot at them? They have to have some way to retaliate. They can't just sit back and let them get away with this crap. Especially with things the way they are over there.

they didn't lie about getting shot at and they confirmed it was untrue. oil prices went up on the rumor.

it could be either side playing games, Iran creating them or the US denying them.

we need to keep things from escalating too quickly and rumors like this are very dangerous.

we're beyond the escalation factor. the attack is inevitable. I think the reason for the brit hostages is bargaining power and possiblly a pathetic attempt to later use them as a human shield of sorts.

I'd put nothing past the Iranian regime, or the US while we're at it.

That is exactly what I thought when they took the hostages. They took them to act as a human shield. They keep saying they are in a secret location, where is that under their nuclear power plant? How long should Iran be given to give back the UK Sailors? I think waiting a week is to much. We need to get them back.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by digitalassassin]

they should give them back immediately. how long did they hold the last ones? a week or so I think.

they've pretty much run out of allies that can help them at this point and further aggrivating the situation certainly isn't going to help their cause.

The soldiers in 2004 were held for 3 nights. Then they were released. After being humiliated on Iranian National TV of course.

These guys and 1 girl now have been there since last Thursday or Friday. So 4 or five days already and they are still being interrogated in a secret location. We haven't even seen or heard from them yet.

I found this while looking through ATS. Anyone think this could be related to a possible incident or shooting by Iran? Or is it just the "Usual" show of force?

Heres the link:

US launches huge show of force in Persian Gulf
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it was probably planned a while ago.

usual flexing of muscles

The points about suppressing this rumor to curb oil increases is something to think about.

I think Bush really doesn't want to attack Iran, nor does he necessarily want Europe to. He knows that attacking Iran would be felt at every gas pump in the country, and the people would be very unhappy and withdraw what little support for the Iraq war we have left.

However with the Democrats in congress, who knows... they have repeatedly gone on record welcoming any increase in the price of gas to try and force people to drive less. We shall see...

Originally posted by apc
I think Bush really doesn't want to attack Iran

Yes, if Iran would just let America run their country Bush would have no reason to go ahead with the attack strategy decades in the making.

We also have decades old plans to attack Canada, don jah gno.

I'm not saying we won't attack Iran. Or Europe won't attack Iran. Believe whatever propaganda you wish, but the Navy jumping to kill these rumors in response to increasing oil prices speaks volumes in my opinion.

Look at it from another angle.

It's a bit like saying, "The rumours about John Doe (who just happens to be your political opponent) being a Satanist and a pedophile are unfounded. We've looked into this and haven't found any evidence yet to prove that he is."

It's a favorite from the Karl Rove playbook.


[edit on 28-3-2007 by gottago]

Why do I have the feeling that this is going to start like the "Tonkin Gulf Incidend"?

Which actually later proved out not to be an incident at all, when the US boats were not shot at, but as it happend, it was a "bad communication".

Originally posted by Crakeur
...... possiblly a pathetic attempt to later use them as a human shield of sorts.

I was thinking the same thing earlier today - in regards to nuclear facilities.

Not that it would stop us, but it could be bad in the public's view if they died in the strikes.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by crisko]

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
17:31 | 27/ 03/ 2007

en.rian.ru...

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

WOW...That is really all I can say...

It seems to me that the region is going to explode in a matter of weeks, maybe even days. Call me paranoid but it does look like a confrontation is on the horizon at this point. It is not going to be as simple as an massive air strike, that I don't think is going to end the problem. Iran is a lot of things, but one thing it is not is stupid. They know what they have in store for them and they will retaliate. An air strike is not going to solve anything by its self.