NationStates Jolt Archive

Link to full article - Al Ahram Weekly (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/891/eg3.htm)

An American cargo ship, on short-term charter from Global Container Lines to the US Navy's Military Sealift Command, opened fire on the evening of 25 March after being approached by a small Egyptian vessel in the Suez Canal. Mahmoud Fouad Afifi, 26, was killed in the incident, and two others aboard the Egyptian boat injured....

....Egyptians trading with the crews of ships passing through the canal know not to approach military vessels. The Global Patriot, though, had no markings to distinguish it from other civilian cargo ships. Military ships crossing through the canal are usually accompanied by a helicopter and small boats are banned from taking to the water until the ships depart. Even civilians are prohibited from walking on the road parallel to the canal when military ships are in transit. "But being frightened of any small boat is not an excuse for shooting. Even if they had approached the US ship -- which they did not -- it would be the Americans' fault since their ship was disguised.

It is poor manners to transit someone's canal then start gunning down their civilians from an unmarked military chartered vessel.

The US Navy had chartered the ship, ergo, unless it was a wet-lease, which would seen unusual for a military contract, there would be US naval crew on board, transporting US military supplies. Why, therefore was the ship not carrying markings to designate it as such?

Why are naval personnel so completely unprofessional in their conduct in one of the worlds busiest waterways passing through the territorial waters of another country that is their ally?

That Egypt allows the US military to use the canal is a symbol of co-operation, good intent, and trust. It is repaid by shooting Egyptian civilians.

yet again the Suez Canal proves itself wholly inadequate for the job at hand

And you didn't mention...

...were hailed and warned by a native Arabic speaker using a bullhorn to turn away. Navy security on board then fired a warning shot using a flare gun. A small boat continued to approach the ship and two sets of warning shots were fired when it was 20-30 yards off the boats bows. "It appears that an Egyptian in the boat was killed by one of the warning shots. The US navy's Fifth Fleet Command is cooperating fully with Egyptian authorities, including the Ministry of Defence, the Suez Canal Authority and other local authorities, as well as the national authorities through the US Embassy in Cairo."

The indications from the US embassy are that there were grounds for the ship to fire warning shots. But, hey, you know you can't trust those devil Americans, the dead guy's uncle is clearly telling the truth, because he doesn't stand to gain anything if the death is determined to be wrongful. :rolleyes:

More than that, we also know that there is absolutely no danger to shipping in "friendly" waters, none whatsoever.

And you didn't mention...



The indications from the US embassy are that there were grounds for the ship to fire warning shots. But, hey, you know you can't trust those devil Americans, the dead guy's uncle is clearly telling the truth, because he doesn't stand to gain anything if the death is determined to be wrongful. :rolleyes:

More than that, we also know that there is absolutely no danger to shipping in "friendly" waters, none whatsoever.

A warning shot that kills someone could hardly be called a warning shot.

First you have to remember it's a canal - that means not all that much room to navigate in. Secondly, the warning shot shouldn't have hit anyone.

But well, at least there's a dialog going on with the Egyptian authorities. They'll have an interest in clearing up the matter and will, at the same time, be somewhat impartial.

A warning shot that kills someone could hardly be called a warning shot.

First you have to remember it's a canal - that means not all that much room to navigate in. Secondly, the warning shot shouldn't have hit anyone.

But well, at least there's a dialog going on with the Egyptian authorities. They'll have an interest in clearing up the matter and will, at the same time, be somewhat impartial.

Whoever fired the warning shot had better get ready to be reassigned to Alaska.

Otherwise, I have no problem with the behaviour of the freighter crew.

A warning shot that kills someone isn't really a warning shot is it? It's more a "back off or we'll shoot the other guy", kind of shot.
But from what i gather Egypt is making a fair bit of trade from tourism. (as i know some people who go there for their holidays and thought it was great)

A warning shot that kills someone could hardly be called a warning shot.

First you have to remember it's a canal - that means not all that much room to navigate in. Secondly, the warning shot shouldn't have hit anyone.

But well, at least there's a dialog going on with the Egyptian authorities. They'll have an interest in clearing up the matter and will, at the same time, be somewhat impartial.

I don't think that they were in the canal yet, rather, they were waiting to enter the canal.

Further, it would seem that if was only two shots fired, it was probably somebody with a rifle, who hadn't fired a rifle in a significant amount of time, and fired off an unlucky shot, or the bullet was deformed, and air resistance forced it on an unlucky course, or all sorts of things.

It would seem that if they were being serious about it, they'd have just sunk the inbound/outbound boat outright, not just taken a random potshot at it.

An unmarked naval chartered vessel

Well, that seems more than a little odd, seeing as it is standard practice to mark US Navy Chartered Vessels when they are carrying goods, and to, as stated in the article, have a Helo flying overhead. I can think of only one reason that it was not following standard protocols. There has to be a Skunkworks Project in the ship, and that is probably the reason that it was not following standard protocols. Wonder what it might have been.

As for the guy who fired the warning shot that killed a man, that was a hell of a Bad Shot, but this wasn't a weapon with stabilizers and mountings, this was a guy, at the mouth of a canal, on a big ship, firing on a boat in similar waters. That boat was probably moving up and down and side to side on the waves, thus making the chances of missing on purpose decrease.

Thats kind of fucked, we should really train our boys better than that...


just hope that doesnt come back to bite us in the ass if we need Egypt's help for something...

A warning shot that kills someone could hardly be called a warning shot.

First you have to remember it's a canal - that means not all that much room to navigate in. Secondly, the warning shot shouldn't have hit anyone.

But well, at least there's a dialog going on with the Egyptian authorities. They'll have an interest in clearing up the matter and will, at the same time, be somewhat impartial.

They fired warning shots first. When the oncoming boat didn't heed the warnings, they shot directly at the boat.

Since the USS Cole incident, and taking into account the recent capture of a French yacht by pirates off Somalia, I think it's appropriate to do something to warn off boats, and even shoot at boats that ignore warnings.

The alternative is to let a boat alongside that may very well either blow up or be full of pirates.

Why are naval personnel so completely unprofessional in their conduct in one of the worlds busiest waterways passing through the territorial waters of another country that is their ally?

Two words: USS Cole

Thats kind of fucked, we should really train our boys better than that...

Yep, they need more target practice.

just hope that doesnt come back to bite us in the ass if we need Egypt's help for something...

Egypt gets billions in aid from the US every year. This incident will have exactly zero impact on US-Egyptian relations.

Yep, they need more target practice.



Egypt gets billions in aid from the US every year. This incident will have exactly zero impact on US-Egyptian relations.

well thats a load off my mind, lol....well atually i didnt think about it anymore after that post, but still :D lol

Your editing of that article was a Marxist dream come true. Stalin could use your skills for his history writing projects.

More than that, we also know that there is absolutely no danger to shipping in "friendly" waters, none whatsoever.

US ships have never been attacked in the Suez canal, or anywhere in Egyptian terretorial waters. It is a very diffiernt situation to Yemen. Suez is very heavily guarded. Walk around Ismailia or Suez some time and you will see what I mean.

A warning shot that kills someone isn't really a warning shot is it? It's more a "back off or we'll shoot the other guy", kind of shot.

Indeed...

just hope that doesnt come back to bite us in the ass if we need Egypt's help for something...

I doubt it will. Egypt really depends heavily on the US for military aid and other things. One of the complaints of the vicims was that they fear the government won't stand up for them.

They fired warning shots first. When the oncoming boat didn't heed the warnings, they shot directly at the boat.

That doesn't seem to have been determiend yet. The US rew claim they ddi, but the Egyptians say there were none and the as soon as hte flare was lit they were fired upon. In a post-Haditha scenario this seems a bit too familiar.

Your editing of that article was a Marxist dream come true. Stalin could use your skills for his history writing projects.

I cut out the middle part as it was a backward and forward argument between the two, and was simply a case of ones word against the other. It would have made the article far too long.

The point I wanted to quote was the fact the ship was not showing any naval markings, and that people were dead, the only facts which no one has disputed. You could of course take the effort to click the link and read the whole article. had I wanted to conceal the story I would have posted the link for the source, would I?

Well, the average navy sailor doesn't just shoot at approaching boats on a whim. Hell, it's not typical for the average navy sailor to even be armed. Clearly these sailors were armed and given rules of engagement. And clearly somebody gave them the orders to fire these warning shots. Somebody is responsible for these questionable orders. As for the man killed by the 'warning shot', I think that story should be investigated. That's a hell of an unlucky warning shot. Still, under the circumstances, I think somebody in charge made a bad call as far as these particular rules of engagement go.

US ships have never been attacked in the Suez canal, or anywhere in Egyptian terretorial waters.
... yet.
Of course, US ships had never been attacked in Yemen before the Cole, and nobody had ever flown planes into buildings before....
The point I wanted to quote was the fact the ship was not showing any naval markings, and that people were dead, the only facts which no one has disputed.
Indeed. That someone is dead is the most important fact, and somebody will have to be held accountable for why this was handled so badly, whatever the details turn out to be.

They fired warning shots first. When the oncoming boat didn't heed the warnings, they shot directly at the boat.

Liar


A small boat continued to approach the ship and two sets of warning shots were fired when it was 20-30 yards off the boats bows. "It appears that an Egyptian in the boat was killed by one of the warning shots.

I smell black operators.

More than that, we also know that there is absolutely no danger to shipping in "friendly" waters, none whatsoever.

I have to speak in favour of the US military this time :eek: :eek: :eek:
1.Anyone knows the US military are a bit more trigger-happy than other militaries, so if you deliberately ignore clear warnings from a US military unit and continue to approach them, you know what you're risking.
2.The attack on USS Cole (in the Red Sea iirc) has raised the US navy alert levels, expecially in the Middle East... and a 5-years invasion of Iraq hasn't decreased them at all.
3.Many other militaries would have reacted in the same way, firing warning shots etc. Hey, even the Italian navy (surely not a very trigger-happy navy) would open fire if confronted with the potential risk of a guerrilla attack in Middle East, expecially after the kamikaze attack at Nassiriya.

On the egyptians' side, I must add that killing a man with a shot fired (likely with an assault rifle) at 20-30 metres isn't an accident. It's deliberate, wheter justified or not.

Have we started issuing letters of Marque again? That might be fun...

if you deliberately ignore clear warnings from a US military unit and continue to approach them, you know what you're risking.
Not if you have no way of knowing that they were US military in the first place. Apparently they were quite unmarked.