Skip to comments.The most plausible explanation for the 10 riverine sailors captured by Iran
Posted on 01/17/2016 6:06:27 AM PST by Travis McGee
See also: Calling BS on the official story of the Iranian capture of two US riverine boats I have separately heard from two experts, both high ranking Marines, one on active duty and the other working in DC at a foundation, the following.
â¨ When I pressed them on the Fars News Service statement from Iran that the 10 captured on the two US vessels were all Marines, they countered: No, they are part of a Rivierine Squadron based in San Diego. Further they are support crews for SEAL missions from the US Navy and highly trained. The Iranians probably mistook âRiverineâ for âMarineâ in doing the story. So that explains several things. Why the captured sailors were so much more fit than the average sailor these days, and how a woman could be among them. While not special ops personnel directly engaged, they have to be extraordinarily fit and well-trained, as indeed these sailors appear to be. It also raises the question as to whether they had been on a...(Read Full Post)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You guys are getting further from the truth, not closer to it.
But I'm still pretty PO'd about Lifson using my content as the "meat" in his bylined story yesterday, putting blog "bookends" around my content, all to put his own byline above my information. He could have contacted me easily, but chose not to, and he would have found out that I have much more information from inside sources than what I posted last week (and Lifson used yesterday). He didn't even respond to any of my comments to him about it, comments now buried in the middle of about 700+ comments.
But if this is how American Thinker is going to run its ship, then forget it, you can just stumble around in the dark with knuckleheads who think that the "Rivierine Squadron" (sic) supports the SEALs.
It is to laugh. Adios to American Thinker, and it's mendacious and unscrupulous editors.
I’m very pissed today. This is the comment I just posted on the new American Thinker article. Please go to the article and consider giving my comment an up-arrow, to force Lifson to respond to me. He has ignored all of my comments to him in yesterday’s “Calling BS” article.
You guys are getting further from the truth, not closer to it.
But I’m still pretty PO’d about Lifson using my content as the “meat” in his bylined story yesterday, putting blog “bookends” around my content, all to put his own byline above my information. He could have contacted me easily, but chose not to, and he would have found out that I have much more information from inside sources than what I posted last week (and Lifson used yesterday). He didn’t even respond to any of my comments to him about it, comments now buried in the middle of about 700+ comments.
But if this is how American Thinker is going to run its ship, then forget it, you can just stumble around in the dark with knuckleheads who think that the “Rivierine Squadron” (sic) supports the SEALs.
It is to laugh. Adios to American Thinker, and it’s mendacious and unscrupulous editors.
Upvoted and commented.
You da man Travis! :)
Thanks, here’s another comment I dropped on their thread, after this from Flavius Maximus:
Let me give you some good advice that has always stood me in good company, “the best revenge is living well.”
I have been fortunate to see this sage advice act out in real time and it always puts you in a serene condition to see the truth and be able to sleep at night without rancor.
In the grand scheme of things your nation and country need you now more than ever. I am reminded by the statement of General Morgan at the battle of Cowpens to the militia, “stay the course.”
My reply to him:
I will, but not here on “American Thinker/Idol,” where Lifson’s stable of pet writers can post commentary about their most recent breakfasts as above-the-fold articles on any given day, while for the rest of us, Lifson plays Simon Cowell. It’s okay to have submissions rejected with form emails, fine. But this is not the first time they have used my content as the meat of a story without contacting me or crediting me in a byline. It’s sleazy, mendacious, and I’m calling them out on it.
AGREED. (you have FReepmail, btw)
Bump for you Travis!!
I think some for of cargo was removed from those boats. It was a simple disguised delivery that went off exactly as planned. And conveniently there wasnt any of those pesky patriotic American CIA ex-Navy SEALs around to jam up the works.
Travis, you are on target! I’ve noticed the weak editorials at AT and their stable of coffee house experts!
Keep up the great work!
Terry L Walker
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
I just posted this on another thread, and I’m reposting it here. Folks still seem to think the boats were on a covert op. This was my reply.
They were NOT dropping off, or picking up. These were just ten random sailors assigned to the bottom-rung of USN boats, the Riverine Squadron. They were created to replace the USCG who had been doing duty watching river inlets and ports in our areas of interest in the Persian Gulf.
It’s SWCC that supports the SEALs, not RS. Thatâs why there was even a lady sailor on board. Just pick ten random sailors off a ship, put them on boats, that is RS.
SWCC is part of NavSpecWar, they support the SEALs. SWCC sailors go through a mini-BUD/S. Their mission means they have to put their bows on the beach and shoot it out unto the death, while recovering SEALs who are being pursued by any number of enemy. SWCCs are warriors, shooters.
These RS guys were just on a routine transit/redeployment between Kuwait and Bahrain. Those boats have a standard crew of five, and that is what was on each boat: the normal crew, no troops, no spooks, no SEALs.
Even if they were dropping off some spooks or SEALs (NOT their mission, NOT their training) they would have had more than five crew on the boats. Even when SWCC is tasked to insert SEALs, some SEALs are still on the SWCC boat for comms and other support.
This theory would have a tiny air of plausibility if they had had more than five crew on the boats. They didn’t. They even had their PASSPORTS with them, because they were on a routine inter-national redeployment. On âcover ops,â you do NOT bring your fracking PASSPORTS!!!
You seem to have a good deal of support in the comments. Kudos!
They were no doubt drunk from too much partying and absolutely worn out from pleasuring the lone sailor amongst them who was different.
What a navy. What an Armed forces.
So, Travis, exactly what were the two boats’ mission?
I wonder if it wasn’t simply a piece of theater to show the world how nice the Iranians are. If that’s the case, would the sailors know they’re being used? Or did they volunteer?
"So that explains several things. Why the captured sailors were so much more fit than the average sailor these days, and how a woman could be among them.
Not a flattering statement...certainly, not one which could help allay concerns about their immediate surrender.
In this day and age the woman on the boat would not be the one the others would be interested in. If you believe the government at least 2 to 3 of the group was gay. So maybe some were tired from having their way with them while the woman was puking over the side of the boat.
I'm seriously disappointed in Thomas Lifson, both for "repurposing" your content and for his complete misunderstanding of the situation. A retraction and an apology would be appropriate.
See # 12.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.