http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311992.stm

This vessel fired upon a nonmilitary boat.  I guess they were afraid of an Al Qadea attack. ::)

You've forgotten the USS Cole already?

I'm not privy to the RoE or to the standing orders on that ship, but I'm going to give the warship's crew the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the civilian craft ignored orders delivered by radio and megaphone (hell, probably by morse and by semaphore) to turn the hell around.  If I'm wrong and the shooting turns out to have been in contravention of the RoE or standing orders, the guys manning the guns just ended their careers.

Civilian pilots know how to stay away from restricted airspace.  Civilian boaters shouldn't be messing around near warships, especially since  warships (being large, grey/black, and rather solid objects) tend to be a lot easier to avoid than invisible cones in the sky.

No, I haven't forgotten about the U.S.S. Cole.  Here is the problem.  Was the U.S. vessel in U.S. waters?    If they delivered a message by radio or megaphone what language were they relaying the message in?  Morse code, I don't think the guys on that tiny speed boat knew morse code. ::))  Was the military of the country to whom the waters belonged notified of the boat?

No, I haven't forgotten about the U.S.S. Cole.  Here is the problem.  Was the U.S. vessel in U.S. waters? 


Was the Cole?  Would an attacker care?

As for warships, it doesn't matter whose waters it was in.  At some point, much like the homeowner, the shotgun, and the burglar, it stops being a regulatory/law enforcement matter.  You act in self defense and clear it up with the authorities (or diplomats) later.

If they delivered a message by radio or megaphone what language were they relaying the message in?  Morse code, I don't think the guys on that tiny speed boat knew morse code. ::))  Was the military of the country to whom the waters belonged notified of the boat?

A shot across the bow has been the traditional (and universally-understood) warning to change course for centuries.

Was the Cole?  Would an attacker care?

As for warships, it doesn't matter whose waters it was in.  At some point, much like the homeowner, the shotgun, and the burglar, it stops being a regulatory/law enforcement matter.  You act in self defense and clear it up with the authorities (or diplomats) later.

A shot across the bow has been the traditional (and universally-understood) warning to change course for centuries.
i hear you dude, but if these ships are just shooting at regular folks tottering around in speedboats, which is what this appears to be, something's broke and needs fixing. it's rather like these frickin' checkpoints they have in iraq where theyre apparently gunning down at least as many civilians as they are insurgents in the interest of being "on the safe side." eventually that sort of thing needs to factor in on your decision whether to continue to occupy a particular place. if you're being cornered into shooting civilians, exactly what purpose are you serving by being there?

also, i do believe it used to be that civilian lives were once more valuable that soldiers' lives. it's rather obvious from conduct like this that the new way of thinking is that soldiers' lives are more valuable than civilian ones. say what you want about a mindset of that kind, it's kinda tough to call it heroic, yanno?

i hear you dude, but if these ships are just shooting at regular folks tottering around in speedboats, which is what this appears to be, 


Sure -- but frankly, nobody here has the facts.

In order to form a useful opinion, even for myself, I'd want to know what the RoE/standing orders were regarding escalation of force, I'd hope (at a minimum) to see something like "fire a warning shot" as one of the last items before "sink 'em", and I'd want evidence that the rules were followed. 

Basically, the same sort of info I'd want with respect to a random news story about a cop (or civilian) shooting another civilian.  Some shoots are justified.  Some aren't.  Doesn't matter if the guy doesn't speak English.  Doesn't matter if the guy's unarmed.  Doesn't matter if the guy's completely innocent. 

Was the Cole?  Would an attacker care?

As for warships, it doesn't matter whose waters it was in.  At some point, much like the homeowner, the shotgun, and the burglar, it stops being a regulatory/law enforcement matter.  You act in self defense and clear it up with the authorities (or diplomats) later.

A shot across the bow has been the traditional (and universally-understood) warning to change course for centuries.


You have a point.  However in regards to "who's water" it was.  That makes all the difference in the world.

You're making assumptions that everyone understands the shot across the bow action.  Some people are pretty stupid.

You have a point.  However in regards to "who's water" it was.  That makes all the difference in the world.

You're making assumptions that everyone understands the shot across the bow action.  Some people are pretty stupid.
evidently, among lots of people in the middle east the holding up the palm gesture that the US troops use at checkpoints means "move along." i heard that soemwhere, dunno if it's true. if it is a lot of people have probably died because of that particular udnerstanding.

evidently, among lots of people in the middle east the holding up the palm gesture that the US troops use at checkpoints means "move along." i heard that soemwhere, dunno if it's true. if it is a lot of people have probably died because of that particular udnerstanding.


Right.  You know what a "thumbs up" means to someone in the middle east? 

Right.  You know what a "thumbs up" means to someone in the middle east? 
that's what it was, i was trying to remember.

also, handshake with right hand? big, big boo boo. :o

You're making assumptions that everyone understands the shot across the bow action.  Some people are pretty stupid.


And may Darwin take the hindmost!

The raised hand and thumbs-up aren't universal.  But if you're sincerely suggesting mercy for someone dumb enough not to alter course after being fired upon by a warship, I can only respond with the Internet's universal hand signal: the facepalm.  :)

And may Darwin take the hindmost!

The raised hand and thumbs-up aren't universal.  But if you're sincerely suggesting mercy for someone dumb enough not to alter course after being fired upon by a warship, I can only respond with the Internet's universal hand signal: the facepalm.  :)


Tell that to dude that was in those pictures taken at Aubu Grab where he's giving the thumbs up over a Arabic Corpse.  As I recall there were calls for his severed head.

I wasn't suggesting mercy.  I was merely suggesting diplomatic protocol, because I'm looking beyond the incident.  My apologizes for worrying a bit about future events.

Oh one more thing, while you're doing the facepalm bit can you do a Godfather imitation too? :)

Hmmm, says the ship told all approaching ships in Arabic to go away before firing the warning shots into the water.  Do Egyptians speak Arabic?  ???

Hmmm, says the ship told all approaching ships in Arabic to go away before firing the warning shots into the water.  Do Egyptians speak Arabic?  ???


Don't think so.

I wasn't suggesting mercy.  I was merely suggesting diplomatic protocol, because I'm looking beyond the incident.  My apologizes for worrying a bit about future events.

Ah, now I get it.  We're cool.  It is a diplomatic embarassment, and I'm sure the diplomats on both sides are working overtime to basically sweep the thing under the rug.


Oh one more thing, while you're doing the facepalm bit can you do a Godfather imitation too? :)


Sure!

...our ships have sailed these straits for many years, but this is the first time one of you guys has ever sailed a little boat up to the hull of my warship without trying to blow it up.  I can't remember the last time you invited me into your port for a cup of coffee... You found paradise as we bought your oil.  Had a good trade.  Made a good living.  We protected you from the Russians, kept the Israelis on a short leash, let you fund your terror-preachin' mosques in Saudia Arabia and even in our own homeland, and you decided you didn't need a friend like us.  But now you come to me and you say "give me justice."  But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather.  Instead, you sail little boats up to my warships while we're both just sailing through the Suez...

Ah, now I get it.  We're cool.  It is a diplomatic embarrassment, and I'm sure the diplomats on both sides are working overtime to basically sweep the thing under the rug.

Sure!

...our ships have sailed these straits for many years, but this is the first time one of you guys has ever sailed a little boat up to the hull of my warship without trying to blow it up.  I can't remember the last time you invited me into your port for a cup of coffee... You found paradise as we bought your oil.  Had a good trade.  Made a good living.  We protected you from the Russians, kept the Israelis on a short leash, let you fund your terror-preachin' mosques in Saudia Arabia and even in our own homeland, and you decided you didn't need a friend like us.  But now you come to me and you say "give me justice."  But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather.  Instead, you sail little boats up to my warships while we're both just sailing through the Suez...


I can hear it now . . .  "Dooood you almost hit a speed boat full of hyper merchants."  How do you explain?  Why you didn't buy some lovely lead-based glazed mugs?

I can imagine diplomacy being held in "Godfather dialect".  Perhaps a few more thing would get done.

I can imagine diplomacy being held in "Godfather dialect".  Perhaps a few more thing would get done.


That's basically how it works.  Just as "Nice store, it would be a shame if something happened to it" is a threat, and "but perhaps we can work something out" is a request for payment, phrases such as "question", "reject", "deplore", "offense", and modifiers such as "deep", or "deeply", actually have real-world meanings and policy implications in terms of both money and blood.  The language of diplomacy predates the West's contact with Japan, but perhaps the Japanese culture, in which form is more important than substance, is the best window through which to understand it.  One can deliver the most vile insults and most terrifying threats to an adversary while still maintaining the highest forms of decorum. 

In a time of peace, for example, saying that "all options are on the table", isn't a threat of war, it's a reminder that, should negotiations continue to go poorly, the threat of war might be placed (via similar diplomatic language) onto the metaphorical table.  In a time of war, "all options are on the table" is not a threat of nuclear annihilation, but a reminder that, should the war go poorly, the nukes might be considered as an option.

Although the world would be a much more peaceful place if people said what they meant, and meant what they said, that's now how you play poker.  For instance, my ideal form of diplomatic negotiations would start with "Cross this line, we try to cost you money.  Cross this next line, we try to get you kicked out of power.  Cross this third line, our guns get fired.  Cross this last line, we stop talking and work on your genocide.  My four lines are here, here, here, and here.  Where are your lines and what are you willing to risk to achieve your objectives?"

But geopolitics isn't chess, where everyone's pieces are in view.  It's poker.  Sure, I'd love to toss diplospeak overboard in exchange for frank speech like that (and so, I'm sure, would the Godfather), but I'd never tell my opponent where my real lines were drawn, and my counterpart would be a fool to honestly tell me were his lines were.  Apart from saltier language, nothing would fundamentally change.

Hence -- diplospeak.  Neither government cares (to the point of lifting a finger, let alone a gun) one way or another, except for the purposes of our domestic political situations.  So the Egyptians pretend to be upset about our unjust shooting of their idjit civilians, and we Yanks pretend to regret the idiocy of some Egyptian boaters who got themselves justifiably shot.  They pretend to be upset, we pretend to apologize.  The forms are observed in that Egyptian voters get to blow off some steam at trigger-happy Yanks, and  that American voters get to laugh at some dumbasses who were messing around with a warship.  Voters on both sides feels good and happy with their governments, both governments get a boost in their approval ratings, and nobody else has to get killed.  Nobody wins, but at least nobody loses.

That's basically how it works.  Just as "Nice store, it would be a shame if something happened to it" is a threat, and "but perhaps we can work something out" is a request for payment, phrases such as "question", "reject", "deplore", "offense", and modifiers such as "deep", or "deeply", actually have real-world meanings and policy implications in terms of both money and blood.  The language of diplomacy predates the West's contact with Japan, but perhaps the Japanese culture, in which form is more important than substance, is the best window through which to understand it.  One can deliver the most vile insults and most terrifying threats to an adversary while still maintaining the highest forms of decorum. 

In a time of peace, for example, saying that "all options are on the table", isn't a threat of war, it's a reminder that, should negotiations continue to go poorly, the threat of war might be placed (via similar diplomatic language) onto the metaphorical table.  In a time of war, "all options are on the table" is not a threat of nuclear annihilation, but a reminder that, should the war go poorly, the nukes might be considered as an option.

Although the world would be a much more peaceful place if people said what they meant, and meant what they said, that's now how you play poker.  For instance, my ideal form of diplomatic negotiations would start with "Cross this line, we try to cost you money.  Cross this next line, we try to get you kicked out of power.  Cross this third line, our guns get fired.  Cross this last line, we stop talking and work on your genocide.  My four lines are here, here, here, and here.  Where are your lines and what are you willing to risk to achieve your objectives?"

But geopolitics isn't chess, where everyone's pieces are in view.  It's poker.  Sure, I'd love to toss diplospeak overboard in exchange for frank speech like that (and so, I'm sure, would the Godfather), but I'd never tell my opponent where my real lines were drawn, and my counterpart would be a fool to honestly tell me were his lines were.  Apart from saltier language, nothing would fundamentally change.

Hence -- diplospeak.  Neither government cares (to the point of lifting a finger, let alone a gun) one way or another, except for the purposes of our domestic political situations.  So the Egyptians pretend to be upset about our unjust shooting of their idjit civilians, and we Yanks pretend to regret the idiocy of some Egyptian boaters who got themselves justifiably shot.  They pretend to be upset, we pretend to apologize.  The forms are observed in that Egyptian voters get to blow off some steam at trigger-happy Yanks, and  that American voters get to laugh at some dumbasses who were messing around with a warship.  Voters on both sides feels good and happy with their governments, both governments get a boost in their approval ratings, and nobody else has to get killed.  Nobody wins, but at least nobody loses.


My cousin was a negotiator for the S.A.L.T 2 and S.T.A.R.T. talks  He always would say how no one trusted anyone.  That's how it was supposed to be.  It's pretty much a science, not a game of chance.

My cousin was a negotiator for the S.A.L.T 2 and S.T.A.R.T. talks  He always would say how no one trusted anyone.  That's how it was supposed to be.  It's pretty much a science, not a game of chance.


As is poker, at the professional level.

Chess and poker are both games of strategy, played human-versus-human.  The difference between chess and poker is that in chess, both players know everything there is to know about the other player's options.  In poker, not so much.

Randomicity is a necessary, but not sufficient, element in a game to make it a game of chance.  Slots are a game of chance.  Blackjack, by contrast, is a game of skill; the cards are random, but better blackjack players (even without counting cards) can (and do) lose money at a slower rate than poor blackjack players.  Blackjack is a human-versus-machine game; the dealer's strategy is etched in stone, it is stated publicly, and he cannot alter it.  By contrast, poker is a game of strategy that is played human-versus-human.

(Personally, I'm a blackjack guy.  I can play blackjack all night and feel relaxed.  Poker?  Gets me stressed just thinking of it :)

As is poker, at the professional level.

Chess and poker are both games of strategy, played human-versus-human.  The difference between chess and poker is that in chess, both players know everything there is to know about the other player's options.  In poker, not so much.

Randomicity is a necessary, but not sufficient, element in a game to make it a game of chance.  Slots are a game of chance.  Blackjack, by contrast, is a game of skill; the cards are random, but better blackjack players (even without counting cards) can (and do) lose money at a slower rate than poor blackjack players.  Blackjack is a human-versus-machine game; the dealer's strategy is etched in stone, it is stated publicly, and he cannot alter it.  By contrast, poker is a game of strategy that is played human-versus-human.

(Personally, I'm a blackjack guy.  I can play blackjack all night and feel relaxed.  Poker?  Gets me stressed just thinking of it :)


I'm still traumatised by the chess game he played me.  Beat me in three moves.  I consider myself a darn good chess player.  The funny thing is when he wold talk about the S.A..L.T. 2 talks he would mention having to stock up on American junk food and stuff to give to the KGB who would go through his briefcase.  He was expecting his thing to be searched but the junk food was to say he wasn't too mad.  What made him mad was the one time he didn't lock his briefcase.  He came back to the hotel and found it locked.  He said it was incompetence. on the part of the KGB.

Yeah, it's a science and it helps to know your opponent and the people involved very well.

What made him mad was the one time he didn't lock his briefcase.  He came back to the hotel and found it locked.  He said it was incompetence. 


Mmm, possible. Given his occupation, it's not surprising that he'd expect to have his stuff poked at.  Maybe it was just their way of saying "Yeah, you know we were here, and we want you to know we were here."

The closet parallel I can draw doesn't count for much, but for what little it's worth, when I check luggage, which isn't often, I usually include a bribe for the TSA goons: "Yeah, you could steal this $beverage but I'd appreciate it if you just stole this $value_of_beverage and bought one yourself, so I can share the $beverage with my friends at $destination, becuase $beverage isn't sold there".  So far, one goon's stolen the money, but nobody's stolen my $beverage, which is fine by me.

Mmm, possible. Given his occupation, it's not surprising that he'd expect to have his stuff poked at.  Maybe it was just their way of saying "Yeah, you know we were here, and we want you to know we were here."

The closet parallel I can draw doesn't count for much, but for what little it's worth, when I check luggage, which isn't often, I usually include a bribe for the TSA goons: "Yeah, you could steal this $beverage but I'd appreciate it if you just stole this $value_of_beverage and bought one yourself, so I can share the $beverage with my friends at $destination, becuase $beverage isn't sold there".  So far, one goon's stolen the money, but nobody's stolen my $beverage, which is fine by me.


He made them come back and unlock it.  I think he's the only person I know who talks about the KGB with a smirk on his face.

I think bribes are pretty much the standard if you're well traveled and know how things work.  Funny thing about people mostly going for food instead of money.

He made them come back and unlock it.


ROFLMAO.  Now that's playing the game!  There are very few times in life when one can simultaneously demonstrate total pwnage and demonstrate good sportsmanship by helping one's opponent improve his game.

I think bribes are pretty much the standard if you're well traveled and know how things work.  Funny thing about people mostly going for food instead of money.

Not really; money's only useful for buying things that you can buy.  For example, a nice $15-50 bottle of wine (or $5-8 bottle of strong hoppy beer at 7-10% ABV) from some obscure winery (or your favorite microbrewery) can be had in any corner store in California.  As close by as Utah, these simple items are effectively priceless.  They're unavailable at retail, illegal to ship via courier/USPS, so a single bottle represents someone spending $100 and an entire the day in commercial airports/planes, and rolling the dice by checking a heavy bag full of easily-stolen and attractive booze into the "care" of the TSA/baggage handlers, or jumping into the car for a 2-day road trip and spending $200 in gas.  (And ditto for the 10 pounds of awesome beef jerky that comes back and gets shared with officemates after the return trip!)

And that's just a weekender across a couple of state lines.  Half a planet's worth of geographical, national, and cultural barriers tends to make just about any routine item (from either side) into a precious artifact.