US admits killing Egyptian with Suez Canal warning shots

[Clammy]

Now that's beyond politeness.


Of course not. There have been several attacks on planes in different disciplines and in different places in the world for different reasons. However, there's no such incident in the Suez Canal for more than 30 years now.

I didn't mean for "asinine" to come out as rude, perhaps I should have just said foolish instead. Sorry about that.

Anyways, the point is, statistically it's much much much safer to board an airplane yet we are not going to let people waltz onto commercial jetliners with no security.

 

[deeper thoughts]

The USS Cole will always remind American sailors what these "little" boats can do

 

[ReefHound]

ReefHound,
Those examples you mentioned are not comparable to Suez Canal. There're lots of airports and refineries, but only one canal serving 7% (as far as I remember) of the world's sea transportation.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

What are you saying, that the examples that I mentioned are not targets because they are not comparable to the Suez Canal? The vast majority (in fact, all) of the past terrorist targets have not been comparable to the Suez Canal either but that did not prevent them from being targets.

The Panama Canal carries 4% of the world's cargo and shutting it down would affect the evil U.S. far more than the Suez Canal would.

Anyway, I think this horse is dead now.

 

[redacted]

I'm not sure how the canal is going to help them but let's go that way. If they're not going to attack the canal (for any reason whatsoever), then it the canal is safe. Then raising an identification banner is not dangerous.

The canal may be safe, but individual ships entering and leaving may not be. An attack on a US interest ship that does not effect shipping that may support terrorist interests is still a viable objective that would only be made simpler by flying a bulls-eye. And the terrorists could always make an error.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Why can't I thank alot of the posters here? My son is in the military. Currently not in harm's way. But if he were on any vessel, military or civilian and a small boat ignored orders to back off I would hope the perceived threat would be eliminated with extreme prejudice and questions asked later. Remembering the USS Cole and those whose lives were taken for no reason. Shoot first ask questions later is the lesson. I'm glad to see some have finally learned it.

 

[Nick_W]

I think everyone is ignoring the real issue here, which is the abysmal marksmanship skills of the average sailor. Having stood by and watched as the sailors of several different ships have attempted to shoot the target they tossed overboard, I can honestly say their best bet if they want to fire a warning shot would be to aim for whatever they're trying not to hit. Or perhaps they should leave the shooting to the professionals.















And yes, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, so don't any of you squids go getting your panties in a bunch.

 

[Spencermm]

Maybe they hit exactly what they were aiming for.

 

[chip104]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The Panama Canal carries 4% of the world's cargo and shutting it down would affect the evil U.S. far more than the Suez Canal would.

Reefhound,

I think you underestimate the economic value and military strategic importance of the Suez Canal. It connects the "East" with the "West". Without it, all maritime vessels travelling from the Asias to Europe and across the atlantic (and vice versa) would have to go around the Cape of Good Hope. Just like if maritime vessels could not go through the Isthmus of Panama, they would have to go around the Drake Passage. Comparing it with the Houston Airport is....well, funny to say the least. edit: considering that many oil tankers traverse the suez canal, as well as being a passage way to the Persian Gulf for military vessels, I'd say shutting down the Suez Canal would have a far greater economic consequence than the Panama Canal - not to say shutting down the Panama Canal would not be bad, because it would.

Considering the amount of boat traffic the canal gets (a lot more than the Panama Canal) and that wars have been fought over the canal as well as it's proximity to regions of turmoil, I do agree with Red Sea Shadow that it has a good record for no terrorist attacks. But it is pretty naive to think that it is not a target. If I were a terrorist, I'd definitely be interested in the bottle neck boat traffic.

 

[ReefHound]

Reefhound,

I think you underestimate the economic value and military strategic importance of the Suez Canal. It connects the "East" with the "West". Without it, all maritime vessels travelling from the Asias to Europe and across the atlantic (and vice versa) would have to go around the Cape of Good Hope.

And I think you overestimate it's importance. The Suez Canal was closed for 8 years starting in 1967 and the world did not stop turning. It's strategic and important but not indispensable.

Comparing it with the Houston Airport is....well, funny to say the least.

What's funnier is your poor reading comprehension skills. I wasn't comparing the airport to the canal in terms of size or importance, but as an analogy to demonstrate that just because a target (any target, big or small) has not yet been attacked does not necessarily mean it's because that target is so well defended that the terrorists can't get it. Try to understand the principle, or at least fake it.

edit: considering that many oil tankers traverse the suez canal, as well as being a passage way to the Persian Gulf for military vessels, I'd say shutting down the Suez Canal would have a far greater economic consequence than the Panama Canal - not to say shutting down the Panama Canal would not be bad, because it would.

Again, more poor reading comprehension skills. I said shutting the Panama Canal would have greater consequences to the U.S., not to the world in general. The Suez links Asia to Europe and mostly affects trade between those two. The Panama links Asia and the U.S. and would have a more direct effect on trade with the U.S.

 

[SteveAD]

I think everyone is ignoring the real issue here, which is the abysmal marksmanship skills of the average sailor. Having stood by and watched as the sailors of several different ships have attempted to shoot the target they tossed overboard, I can honestly say their best bet if they want to fire a warning shot would be to aim for whatever they're trying not to hit. Or perhaps they should leave the shooting to the professionals.

And yes, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, so don't any of you squids go getting your panties in a bunch.

It's not so much that sailors have abyssmal marksmanship skills as the fact that even a large ship is not exactly a stable platform. when the shooter and the target are both moving in an essentially random manner, accuracy will certainly suffer.