ACT OF WAR? Close Call With Iranian Rockets

U.S. Carrier Harry S. Truman Has Close Call With Iranian Rockets

www.nbcnews.com

The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman came about 1,500 yards from an Iranian rocket in the Strait of Hormuz last week, two U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

As the Truman was transiting the strait, which connects the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, Iranian Revolutionary Guards conducted a live-fire exercise right near the U.S. carrier Saturday, officials said.

A U.S. military official said an Iranian navy fast and short attack craft began conducting a live-fire exercise at the same time the carrier was nearing the end of the strait, firing off several unguided rockets. A French frigate, the U.S. destroyer USS Buckley and other commercial traffic were also in the area.

Aircraft Carrier U.S.S. Harry S. Truman steams underway on March 29, 2003 in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. U.S. Navy / Getty Images File

The official said the U.S. ships were in the "internationally recognized maritime traffic lane" at the time, not in any territorial waters, when the Iranian navy announced over maritime radio that it was about to conduct a live-fire exercise and asked other vessels to remain clear.

After the warning, the rockets were fired from a position about 1,500 yards off the carrier's starboard side and in a direction away from passing coalition and commercial ships and the traffic lane, the official said. The rockets were not fired at the Truman and other ships, only near them.

While the official said the Iranians were "clearly not" targeting ships, the action was "unnecessarily provocative and unsafe."

There were no direct communications between U.S. and Iranian navies.

Coalition forces continued transiting without any further incident, the official said, adding that the Truman is now in the Gulf and launching aircraft in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

COMMENTS

Sick bias in Yahoo! and AP article against Israel

In case you have been living under a rock, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israelis have been firing rockets at each other in what appears to be an escalating fight that could soon be considered an all-out war, especially if ground fighting commences. While the following AP article by Ian Deitch and Ibrahim Barzak, featured on the front page of Yahoo.com is not the first example of anti-Semitic bias coming from liberal journalists, I just felt the need to point it out to you. Please read the article here. 

This article left me with the false impression that the big bad bullies are purposefully avoiding diplomacy in order to use excessive and unprovoked force on a defenseless little group of civilians and other non-military targets. The authors made gratuitous use of the word "offensive" to drive home his point. This isn't an offensive as much as it is a response, but it wasn't until the sixth paragraph that it was pointed out:

"Israel launched the operation on Wednesday in what it said was an effort to end months of rocket fire out of the Hamas-ruled territory. It began the offensive with an unexpected airstrike that killed Hamas' powerful military chief, and since then has relentlessly targeted suspected rocket launchers and storage sites."

After this brief random act of journalism, the author quickly snapped back to liberal "victim" mode by mentioning the disparity between the dead and wounded of the Palestinians verses the Israelis, highlighting the civilian numbers.

How about this for warmongering: When Maj. Gen. Tal Russo, Israel's southern commander was "asked whether Israel is ready to send ground troops into Gaza, he said: 'Absolutely.'"

Words matter. This sentence sounds like Tal Russo is definitely going to invade, and trust me, the authors desperately hope you think so, to further the narrative of the "bullies" being warmongers. But he wasn't asked if he was going to invade. He was asked if he was READY to send troops. Even if he wasn't ready to invade he would have been obligated to say he was. This was a trick question in order to get the reader to believe something other than what was really meant.

Then here is the Big Whopper lie in the article:

"The White House said President Barack Obama was also in touch with the Egyptian and Turkish leaders. The U.S. has solidly backed Israel so far."

That is a boldface LIE. The truth is that the U.S. has been solidly backing Israel since the beginning all the way up until we elected a Commander-in-Chief that turned out to be clearly anti-Semitic in 2008. There has been a clear reversal of the above statement since Barack Obama took office with every action he has ever taken. Listen to Michael Savage talk about the last time Israel's Prime Minister had a chance to visit America:

Then the authors unwittingly give support to my belief that an Obama Administration led U.S. is NOT backing Israel by writing this"

"Speaking on Air Force One, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said that the White House believes Israel "has the right to defend itself" against attack and that the Israelis will make their own decisions about their "military tactics and operations."

Translation: Israel, you are on your own.

To put an exclamation point on my belief that the U.S. sadly no longer backs Israel, the authors end the article with this paragraph:

"[Egypt's President] Morsi warned that a ground operation by Irael will have 'repercussions' across the region. 'All must realize the situation is different than before, and the people of the region now are different than before and the leaders are different than before,' he said at a joint press conference with Turkey's Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan, like Morsi, leads an Islamist government that has chilly diplomatic ties with Israel."

Translation: Neither George W. Bush or Mitt Romney can save you now.

I'm not really sure why these authors put the lie into this article. Maybe they are merely just mistaken? Considering the pro-Hamas bias in the article, I am left to conclude that by believing the U.S. has Israel's back, it makes them look even more like bullies than they are already made out to be. It could also be that since the authors are liberal and pro-Hamas, that they must also hate the U.S. and that if they subscribe to the old adage that an enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the reverse must be true. In other words, since Israel is the authors' enemy, and the U.S. is the authors' enemy, then Israel and the U.S. must still be friends. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.