Talk:Alleged missile attack on USS Mason

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to: navigation, search

Finding reliable sources?

Mason was near the strait of Bab el-Mandeb in international waters when two missiles were fired from shore around 7 P.M. local time on Sunday, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said to reporters. “USS Mason detected two inbound missiles over a 60-minute period while in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen. Both missiles impacted the water before reaching the ship,” Davis said
Unable to find direct Pentagon news item on this topic at this time.
Iran-backed Houthi forces claimed responsibility for the attack and warned other members of the Saudi-led coalition to stay away from Yemeni waters.
Unable to find at Ansar Allah News twitter
No conclusion-incomplete information --Resup (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like the exact statement they made after the Swift attack and subsequent warning. I don't think this is related to the USS Mason attack, which they have repeatedly denied. Is there some suggestion that they did make this statement with regards to the Mason? --PavewayIV (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Could be; reference on top appears to say Houthi forces claimed responsibility for the USS Mason attack but no reference to first-hand source there so could be be wrong. Have not seen direct source claiming responsibility; so maybe there were no such admission--Resup (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Saudi missile attack

Skeptical of this claim. Saudis had tweeted their "naval forces" (ship-based or from a port, etc.?) were firing at a vessel, thought Iranian, and then deleted this. Waiting for screen grabs. With Saudi-US cooperation, such a mis-identification seems unlikely. If it wasn'an accident ... that means it was presumably a plot to frame the Yemenis and ensure US support or even more direct help to KSA's war against Yemen, despite KSA's recent major act of terrorism. US responds by dismissing Yemen's denial of responsibility, and destroying some of Yemen's(early KSA attack warning?) radar sites.

If Saudis fired, and it was no accident, the presumably plot has worked well. So ... why would the Saudis have anyone telling their media sources anything about this operation? Makes no sense. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Iranian Noor Missile?

The author of that Esquire article, Robert Bateman, is a regular neocon apologist and Iran hater. Everything that goes on anywhere in the Middle East seems to be some kind of evil Iranian scheme. I don't think there's any credible evidence that Iran ever sold/gave Noors to Yemen. The Republican Guard bought plenty of real Chinese C-802s back in the day. They're an older model, but they're the real deal. This whole Noor think started from the non-stop efforts to link the Houthis with Iran directly so we (the U.S.) can start a war with them as soon as possible. MSM stenographers jump at articles like Batemans and start repeating the Iranian/Noor thing as fact. I'm pretty sure it's all propaganda. There's no real references to the original Yemeni purchases (late 90's IIRC), but there are also none of Iran ever sending the Houthis/RG any Noors. It's just wishful thinking by the neocons. --PavewayIV (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Not surprising. Other active questions, in my mind anyway, include whether there were any missiles fired, if they were from (Saleh-loyalist) Yemeni forces if so. Even if they have a real track crossing "Houthi" territory, it might have been launched from further back in areas held by ISIS and the Saudi-backed forces. Seems this whole guess is based on the supposed range. Not a very solid basis. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Motivation

Not sure if this is too far off in tin-foil hat land, but there is a specific reason the Saudis/Qatar/UAE want free reign over Yemen's west coast: they have a big base on the other side of the Red Sea in Eritrea. That's where the Swift was operating out of and that's where they are staging troops/equipment for the eventual Yemeni invasion (by sea). The U.S. isn't protecting international shipping (as claimed), they are protecting Saudi/UAE rat lines over the Red Sea. See my comment PavewayIV | Oct 14, 2016 4:12:56 AM | 72 at MoA

That makes a lot of sense. If you're worried about Yemeni ability to target incoming ships, you criminalize their ship-attackaing capabilities and find excuses to damage it, taking out radar sites, etc. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Another possible motivation, from the terrorist aspect I mention above, is the Saudi coalition displaying its abilities to terrorize Yemen into surrender. They can massacre hundreds and deny it or fob off the blame, and still get the US to attack them as well, in "self-defense." The funeral attack served the same purpose as the US air attack on SAA forces in Deir Ezzour - provided a reason the aggrieved party might be angry and do the next thing that gets them in trouble (attacking the SARC aid convoy in Aleppo, attacking the USS Mason). Now Yemen might be mad about the radar site attacks, and that's a reason to believe the next allegation. Etc. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)