US admits killing Egyptian with Suez Canal warning shots

[ReefHound]

In the Suez Canal? A lot!

Have you ever heard that a terrorist attack occurred in the Suez Canal? Although it's narrow enough that targeting any vessel will block it completely and allow for more time "and chaos" to target other "suspected" vessels.

Like what? Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't a vulnerable target. Most of the planning - acquiring the explosives, getting them into the canal zone, arranging a small boat, finding willing martyrs, etc. - are things that would be done well ahead of time and have nothing to do with whether a ship displays a banner or not.

 

[Clammy]

Whether this particular vessel had a warning banner/flag or not is a moot point now. I guess the argument is whether vessels should from now on. This vessel did seem to give ample warning before opening fire.

However... I do wonder what they consider a "warning shot" since apparently the warning shots are what killed the person. Seems to remind me of Spaceballs "I said fire across the nose, not UP it!"

 

[redacted]

I don't think so. Raising the suitable banner only in crowded areas like the Suez Canal and its entry/exit won't give any time to plan a terrorist arrack.

It seems to me that almost all of the planning could be done leaving specific target selection and time of attack to be determined in the final hours. Perhaps observers spotting ships flying the "bulls-eye banner" entering the canal could relay information to support final planning to attackers at the other end. And, of course, there are always targets of opportunity (other ships flying such a banner) if the plan for the primary target falls through. Do you really think the bullhorn and non-lethal flares are not sufficient warning for the prudent small boat to change course and end the perceived threat? It is not that I see anything wrong with the concept of adding warning shots if the situation permits. However, once a potential threat has gotten too close, decisive action may be required regardless of the progression of warning actions. And then there is always the potential for misjudgment and human error in such situations.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

Like what? Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't a vulnerable target. Most of the planning - acquiring the explosives, getting them into the canal zone, arranging a small boat, finding willing martyrs, etc. - are things that would be done well ahead of time and have nothing to do with whether a ship displays a banner or not.

Like doing fairly enough investigation before giving sailing permits to those people. As far as I know, the Egyptian authorities don't give sailing permits in this area unless they make sure that these people are "clear". And may be that's why we didn't experience any attacks within the last 30 years!

 

[ReefHound]

Like doing fairly enough investigation before giving sailing permits to those people. As far as I know, the Egyptian authorities don't give sailing permits in this area unless they make sure that these people are "clear". And may be that's why we didn't experience any attacks within the last 30 years!

As far as I know, terrorists couldn't care less if they have the right permits or not. Getting a citation is hardly their greatest concern. I'll even bet some of the guys setting off car bombs don't have drivers licenses!

 

[deeper thoughts]

As far as I know, terrorists couldn't care less if they have the right permits or not. Getting a citation is hardly their greatest concern. I'll even bet some of the guys setting off car bombs don't have drivers licenses!

Good point!

 

[jeraldjcook]

Perhaps they could just make the canal a "bomb free zone". Seems to work so well in the USA.

I'm sticking to the banner idea, even if it makes the vessel a target.

 

[drbill]

I likewise question why a "warning shot" would actually strike someone. Seems like the individual firing may need some target practice to improve their aim.

 

[jeraldjcook]

I likewise question why a "warning shot" would actually strike someone. Seems like the individual firing may need some target practice to improve their aim.

Just throwing this out there: depending on the angle of fire in relation to the water, the bullet could have ricocheted of the water surface. Very unlikely but it can happen.

 

[Spencermm]

How bout that new weapon(new to me anyway) that raises the surface temp. of the body a few degrees- perhaps by microwaves, I really can't remember. Supposed to freak out the target without causing any real skin damage. Least that's what they said on Future Weapons anyway.
I could see where a weapon like that, conceptually, would be useful in such circumstances.
Spencer