Tin Foil Hat Time! re: Today's narrow miss attack on 2 US vessels

[sabra]

First we have Putin urging the US and "coalition" to withdraw from Iraq. Coincidently Putin was meeting with Jordanian King Abdallah II.

http://english.people.com.cn/200508/19/eng20050819_203431.html

Putin urges withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq

Russian President Vladimir Putin called on Thursday for a step-by-step withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, saying it is necessary to determine the date of the withdrawal, the Russian media reported.

"We believe it necessary to work out a schedule of gradual withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq. Many Iraqis consider them occupational," Putin said at a joint new conference after meeting with visiting Jordanian King Abdallah II in the Russian president's residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

This morning rockets just missed hitting two US vessels at a Jordain port. The report indicates that the ships were the targets. In addition, there are already claims that Al Qaeda was involved. Further more they were already looking for 3 suspects (Syrian, and 2 Iraqis).

http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=90551

Rockets narrowly miss U.S. ships in Jordan

REUTERS

AMMAN (Reuters) - Katyusha rockets were fired at two U.S. warships in Jordan's Red Sea Aqaba port on Friday, missing their targets, and Jordanian security officials said they believed al Qaeda was involved in the attack.

The rockets hit a warehouse, a hospital and the nearby Israeli port of Eilat. The only casualty was a Jordanian soldier on guard duty at a warehouse, who was killed.

Jordanian security officials told Reuters most initial indications pointed to the involvement of al Qaeda, which has been blamed in recent years for several plots to launch attacks on Western targets and government installations.

"We believe al Qaeda was behind this," a security source said.

Jordanian Interior Minister Awni Yarfas told Reuters an examination of the rocket launcher appeared to indicate the attackers "were confused and had not properly prepared for the attack, which missed its target which were the vessels."


....


"We are searching for a Syrian and two Iraqis who are in Aqaba and used Kuwaiti (car) number plates," the source said. Another source said the rockets were launched from a warehouse leased a few days ago by three Iraqis and an Egyptian.

Here's what really grabbed me. Why were those US ships there? They were conducting a joint training exercise. Where have I heard that before.

http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=90551



The USS Kearsarge leaves the port of Aqaba in Jordon August 19, 2005. Three rockets were fired at two U.S. Navy ships in Jordan's Aqaba port on Friday, but they missed their targets and hit a warehouse and a hospital, killing a Jordanian soldier, and striking the Israeli port of Eilat. Immediately after the attack, the two U.S. Amphibious assault ships, which had been on a joint training exercise with the Jordanian navy, weighed anchor and headed for the safety of open water.

And what's our response to all this?

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/12426149.htm

U.S. questions Jordan rocket strikes

Associated Press


CRAWFORD, Texas - The Bush administration was trying to determine Friday whether rocket strikes from Jordan that narrowly missed a U.S. Navy ship were aimed at U.S. interests and how seriously to take the claim of responsibility from an al-Qaida linked group.

"We condemn all such attacks," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who is with the vacationing President Bush here. "We are investigating the matter and will cooperate with local Jordanian officials on the attacks."

And where is our Prez? Who really knows... What we do know is the he is planning some getaway in Idaho for next week.

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/news/stories/112445694682527.shtm


President Bush to Vacation at Tamarack Resort

Donnelly, ID (Friday, August 19, 2005) - Tamarack Resort received official confirmation today that President George W. Bush will be at the Idaho ski and snowboard resort Aug. 22-24. Tamarack, North America's newest four-season mountain resort, is located in the Payette River Valley, 100 miles North of Boise in Valley County, Idaho.

During the President's visit, access to the resort will be limited to Tamarack Resort homeowners, Club members, lodging guests and season pass holders. However, there will be no planned public appearances by the President and some areas of the resort may be restricted.

Today's events are very suspicious. If the ships were hit, what doors would open? It might be interesting to keep an eye on this and see how it plays out.

[Bob3]

1. can you say gulf of tonkin?

Good
I knew you could.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. They will use it the same way

but remember they are not playing with the same play book we are

[SpiralHawk]

20. Remember the Maine !

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Get the tin foil hat off

this is not surprising and Katyusas are woefully innadecuate... and inaccurate and anybody with a little rocketry knowledge can build one

now pay attention with what they do after the fact.

[sabra]

4. any predictions?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yep round the usual suspects (cheney, Bush, Rice et al)

they will tie this to Iran and Syria so fast you will go dizzy.

When local terra benefits the powers that be... this is what is so maddening... when the locals (who for the record ain't paying attention to what is going on in Crawford or DC) give the usual suspects what they need to convince the Sheeple we need to go to war.

next thing you'll hear is that Katyushas are now ICBMs with Nukes on them....

Never mind it is amazing when a Katyusha actually manages to go off and HIT SOMETHING.

They are very low tech, VERY

[ewagner]

5. It does smell

a bit doesn't it.

I'd like to see a map showing the proximity of the warehouse (that was hit) in relation to the two US warships (that were not hit)...

color me skeptical.....but hey.....that's just me.....

[Ian David]

6. Of course they attacked our ships during "exercises" in Jordan.

When they were on exercises in Jordan, that meant they were "in the neighborhood."

It would have been damn hard for terrorists in Jordan to attack our ships if they were cruising around The Bering Strait, as opposed to being parked in a harbor in Jordan.

If terrorists in Jordan want to attack an American ship, their best bet is to wait for the ship to come to Jordan. For example, during exercises.

On edit- if I'm missing your point, please let me know.

[sabra]

8. I guess exercises rubs me the wrong way...

especially after learning there were "exercises" on September 11, 2001.

[Ian David]

19. Well, look at it this way. What kinds of exercises do we do?

Well, we practice for things that might happen.

For example, we hold exercises to practice intercepting a hijacked plane.

We don't hold exercises to practice for thwarting an invasion of Mole People From The Center of The Earth.

I don't find it extraordinary that something we thought was likely enough that we need to practice for it actually happened.

And from what I understand, that exercise was done pretty routinely.

Could the 9/11 exercises be linked as part of a conspiracy? Maybe. It's possible. I don't think it's very likely, but it's possible. I just don't think those 9/11 exercises are a smoking gun.

If you want to show that Bush was complicit in 9-11, there's better evidence than that.

On edit: Oh, and before the London tube bombing, there was a company filming a movie in London-- about a tube bombing.

[sabra]

21. I am not just referring to exercises as predictive measures

more in the sense of an exercises occurring during a real attack, and hindering response.

[Ian David]

22. "We would have gotten there in time, but we were too busy doing exercises"

Is that what you're thinking of?

[sabra]

23. sort off

but also the potential of extra blips being on airline controllers screens (due to simulated exercises).

[Ian David]

24. "We would have shot it, but we thought it was part of the exercise."

Something like that?

[sabra]

25. IanDB1, seems like you are leading to something

so why don't you just spill it :-)

[Ian David]

26. I'm not. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the argument being made

1) Wow, the thing we keep practicing for because we think it might happen actually happened.

2) Hey, we would have been able to help but we were too busy doing exercises.

3) I woulda shot them, but I thought they were part of the exercise.

All of those are actually pretty weak by themselves. Not enough to be a "smoking gun." One would need much more corroborating evidence to make a case for a conspiracy.

In fact, I think all three of those are actually movie cliches I have seen on the sci-fi channel more than once.

"Hey, Achmed! Come watch this episode of Star Trek with me! Look, The Enterprise didn't fire on the Romulans because they thought it was part of the exercise. That gives me a great idea. We need to find out when the Americans are doing their exercises..."

I'm not saying they can't be part of a conspiracy. Just that it's not enough.

[sabra]

27. We are in agreement, it's not enough to be a "smoking gun."

but to me it's an integral component (at least for 9/11).

peace

[Ian David]

28. Very possibly an integral component. Although I give better odds for...

"willful negligence" than for "directly complicit" as far as Bush is concerned.

What my "gut" tells me is that Bush knew there would be an attack on New York, and took steps to make sure nothing interfered. In other words, he was "willfully negligent."

But my gut also tells me that he had NO IDEA they were also going to attack Washington, DC.

I base that "gut feeling" on watching him reading "The Pet Goat" on 9-11, and seeing the way he responded, more than anything else.

But based on the evidence, the way I see it, I think Bush was criminally negligent, as opposed to complicit or even willfully negligent

I'm open to the possibility that Bush was directly complicit. That he sat down with the Saudis and worked on the playbook with them.

My personal assessment of the odds are:

Criminally Negligent-- 85% likely
Willfully Negligent-- 10% likely
Directly complicit-- 5% likely

[MindPilot]

7. Generally speaking, shooting AT a US warship

is about the same as hitting it. All the political capital without any of the messy damage.

Me thinks the USS Kearsarge will soon become a household name...like USS Maddox.

[sabra]

9. that's what concerns me.

what can be gained from this.

[ironman202]

10. this attack is rather pitiful

firing a qatoosha rocket at a nimitz class aircraft carrier is like...well it may as well be...no it is the equivalent of...is damn nigh a bottle rocket

[MindPilot]

13. Those ships aren't carriers

They are amphibious landing/attack vessels. The do have some aircraft, Harriers and helicopters, but mostly they are designed to get beach assault units as close as possible to the beach, then pull back for support. They carry a bunch of Marines, and the means to get them and their stuff the last couple miles to whatever land mass they are attacking.

Which means that little rocket would probably be even less effective.

[uppityperson]

11. Me too, and I'm not usually tinfoilhatty, just skeptical

[goforit]

14. Nahhh......nothing is here except propaganda.

[goforit]

15. Or...maybe Bush wants to keep Osama presence alive for Muslum world

A near miss.

Makes good propaganda either way.

[sabra]

17. considering next week is 9/11 propaganda week from the Bush admin

I wouldn't be surprised.

[jokerman93]

16. Lately I've been thinking

Lately I've been thinking we might be well into a world war scenario already, given China and Russia's interesting collaborations etc. Given the controlled media here in the U.S. how would we really know until it was too late to change course?

[arcane1]

18. you are thinking correctly

grab some popcorn, because the show is just getting started... Act 1 is over