Iranians at it again

[eddie]

Seem's like they love seeing how far they can go. But doing a live fire exercise near the USS Truman is pushing it! A missile passed with 1,500 yards of it! They didn't announce they were having this so called live fire test. Keep it up Iran, one of these days they will bite off more then they can chew!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-carrier-harry-s-truman-has-close-call-iranian-n487536

[Buddahaid]

USN should act like this was the gnat it was and ignore it. That will piss off the Iranians more than anything else. No response.

[eddie]

I'm pretty sure the Truman just kept going without batting an eye. But a simple mistake made by someone could lead to something bigger, and don't think the Iranians would like the response.

[Oberon]

Eh, we've got enough problems without starting something with the Iranians, let them play. It's more likely that Greece and Turkey will start something that Iran will start something with the US, especially while it's still doing its thing with Saudi Arabia.

[HW3]

They know our present leader will not do anything except apologize for the USS Truman being there, and give them whatever they want to make up for it.

[Buddahaid]

They know our present leader will not do anything except apologize for the USS Truman being there, and give them whatever they want to make up for it.

Oh nuts.
https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/EKuMINPmodWUCfY6tD8T_g--/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wME EzMDA7aD00ODg7dz0zOTA-/http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/56/5616/6FBMG00Z/posters/ernest-borgnine.jpg.cf.jpg

[Betonov]

Iran is on a good road to modernise themselves, open to the west and loose the ''wannabe tough guy'' image.
This was just a show for their own population. The decades of anti-west rhetorics made quite a few hawks in their own ranks and they need to see some good ol' fashioned propaganda to keep them from actively changing open policies that Irans economy needs.

Just ignore them.
Unless you want Iran to turn into another islamic hellhole, then go ahead, bomb them and let the hawks and imams gain back power that they've been slowly loosing in the last years.

[Catfish]

Well Iraq attacked Iran back then, if anyone remembers the (back then) good friend of the USA Saddam Hussein, when he was told to lead a US proxy war against Iran.
The tide only turned when Saddam threatened Saudi Arabia, another good friend of the West, especially well known for 9/11 and the IS.
Then the Media told our brave citizens that Saddam now had weapons of mass destruction, threatened the whole world and was responsible for 9/11.
Ah.

And after what has happened in iran from 1900 until the Shah and Ajatollah Chomeini, who was a reaction to the West's ..errm.. "influence" (lmao) i really wonder how Iran could ever forgive anyone, in the West. The US sure would not.

Cut them a bit slack. Most Iranians i have met in England and Germany are rather modern and open-minded, often also well-educated. The religious nutjobs will lose influence, as soon as the iranian citizens have contact to the world, and some better life again.

I'd be more concerned of Iraq, and the mess we created there. After all, most IS commanders are former members of the iraquian army and Iraq's secret service. I wonder where they got those ideas from. :03:

[Jimbuna]

I think most importantly...

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.

[August]

if anyone remembers the (back then) good friend of the USA Saddam Hussein, when he was told to lead a US proxy war against Iran.

That is just not true although I think you already knew that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war
Although it is widely believed in the Middle East that the United States gave Saddam Hussein a "green light" to invade Iran, available evidence suggests that this allegation is completely lacking in foundation and also improbable due to the danger it would have presented for the American hostages still held in Iran. According to Iran expert Mark G. Gasiorowski and former CIA Middle East analyst Bruce Riedel, the lack of any diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq at the time would have made it difficult for the U.S. to convey any such message to Saddam's government, but if it had, "Saddam would not have listened." Former U.S. assistant secretary of state Thomas Pickering stated: "As opposed to 1990, there was no April Glaspie moment—there was no clear indication we know of from a reliable source that Saddam might have interpreted as a green light ... if there was such a moment, we should ask why the Iraqis didn't come forward and say 'Carter made us do it.'"Moreover, in 1979, CIA official George Cave led a mission to warn Iranian officials about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq's preparation for an invasion. Although there is some evidence that Brzezinski may have seen the outbreak of the war as a pretext to justify increased U.S. involvement in the region, Gary Sick cites a declassified memo from Brzeinski to Carter that "argued for 'Iran's survival' and held out the possibility of secret negotiations with Tehran" as disproving "the unfortunate conventional wisdom that Brzezinski promoted the Iraqi invasion." Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani explained his view on the matter in 2008: "I have said before that I do not believe that America directly played a role in starting the war. I don't believe any sane person could possibly subscribe to this view. Rather, I believe that America was happy with the outbreak of war against Iran, and perhaps even played an indirect role in bringing it about." In sum, "The United States did not give a 'green light' to Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, contrary to prevailing opinion in Iran and throughout the Middle East. The United States and other permanent members of the UN Security Council, did, however, implicitly ratify the attack after the fact by refusing to condemn the Iraqis".

[Catfish]

^ hmm, i do not agree with this Wikipedia article, also read the "talk" section of this.. Saddam Hussein never did anything without informing the USA first. It is just that the last time the US response to his announcement could be read like Pythia's oracle.

[Aktungbby]

Seem's like they love seeing how far they can go. But doing a live fire exercise near the USS Truman is pushing it! A missile passed with 1,500 yards of it! They didn't announce they were having this so called live fire test. Keep it up Iran, one of these days they will bite off more then they can chew!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-carrier-harry-s-truman-has-close-call-iranian-n487536
Nah There's gotta be an air umbrella over the carrier in those waters (There is a 3 mile territorial limit in the Strait; not 12 as is customary) and the Iranians still welllll recall our live fire exercise:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Iran-stamp-Scott2335.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-stamp-Scott2335.jpg)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Iran_Air_655_Strait_of_hormuz_80.jpg/220px-Iran_Air_655_Strait_of_hormuz_80.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_Air_655_Strait_of_hormuz_80.jpg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)
and a little background: http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf (http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf) Plus we've been known to play rough too::hmmm: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/navy-exercise/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/navy-exercise/) IMHO: situation normal: but after the USS COLE: everyone verrrryy 'bright-eyed and bushy-tailed'...:stare: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/USS_Vincennes_launching_SM-2MR_in_1987.jpg/170px-USS_Vincennes_launching_SM-2MR_in_1987.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Vincennes_launching_SM-2MR_in_1987.jpg)

[August]

^ hmm, i do not agree with this Wikipedia article, also read the "talk" section of this.. Saddam Hussein never did anything without informing the USA first. It is just that the last time the US response to his announcement could be read like Pythia's oracle.

Believe what you want, you will anyways, but remember this is the Carter White House you're talking about here. He could barely order our own people into harms way at Desert One to rescue our hostages let alone order another country to start a huge war with it's neighbor.

[eddie]

I don't want us to get into a war with Iran, but in a case like this, a small mistake on either sides part could lead to much bigger problems.

[orla trees]

[COLOR=orange]Nah There's gotta be an air umbrella over the carrier in those waters (There is a 3 mile territorial limit in the Strait; not 12 as is customary)]
Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.

[Dowly]

Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.
First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.

May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.

[orla trees]

Believe what you want, you will anyways, but remember this is the Carter White House you're talking about here. He could barely order our own people into harms way at Desert One to rescue our hostages let alone order another country to start a huge war with it's neighbor.
An interesting viewpoint.
Now forgive me if my memory is fuzzy but wasn't the order to cancel the messed up operation made by your president at the request of his military commanders?
So are you saying that your president was so hawkish that he had difficulty cancelling the operation after the military had said it was somewhat screwed at Desert One?

[orla trees]

First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.

May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.

That would be under laws of the sea, look at any map of the straights.
You can find the line that delieates Omani waters and Iranian waters. There is no gap between the two. there is no "international waters" and there is no "three mile limit" as both countries are signatories to the law which sets it at twelve miles.
America never signed, which puts it league with places like Kazachstan, but that is irrelevant as it is not American waters and the US/USSR declaration on territorial waters issued in 1989 recognises the territorial waters as defined by the signatories of the 1982 law which defines the 12 mile limit.

[Oberon]

Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

http://i.imgur.com/lYVD9Rb.gif?1

orla has a point there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

[Aktungbby]

orla trees!:Kaleun_Salute:Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.

First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.

May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.

Actually balderdash is what its all about::D relying on my source, possibly outdated : http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf (http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf) Neither Iran nor the United States are signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, governing the Straits of Hormuz. Which is similar to the Montreux Convention for the Bosphorus controlled by Turkey generally aginst Russia. God knows what the Brits do when Russians are in the English Channel:yep: basically; since Iran is NOT signatory to the UNCLOS and is under no compunctoion to recognize legal regimes, it does NOT enjoy a twelve mile territorial sea limit, as claimed for example by neighboring Oman, and may claim only the 'historic' 3 nautical mile territorial limit (hey a few extra feet:up:) thereby. Iran has signed, but not ratified, the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention. The US, not signatory, claims "longstanding practice and 'opinio juris'; innocent passage is a longstanding right of 'customary' international laws. Customary transit argument is considered weaker than innocent passage right...China for example, when passing too close to the US Aleutians claims 'innocent passage' while denying it to everyone in the South China Sea's Spratley Islands... so everyone plays this game IMHO. With regard to Oman's twelve mile claim: are there even twelve miles to claim??!!:doh: My link describes the situation as a 'knife fight in a phone booth':nope: EDIT: I see HMS Oberon has slipped in also:yeah: whilst I was composing my 'balderdash' response! :03: Iran's (Islamic Republic) addendums to UNCLOS treaty
Upon signature (10 December 1982):
Interpretative declaration on the subject of straits
"In accordance with article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seizes the opportunity at this solemn moment of signing the Convention, to place on the records its "understanding" in relation to certain provisions of the Convention. The main objective for submitting these declarations is the avoidance of eventual future interpretation of the following articles in a manner incompatible with the original intention and previous positions or in disharmony with national laws and regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is, . . . , the understanding of the Islamic Republic of Iran that:
1) Notwithstanding the intended character of the Convention being one of general application and of law making nature, certain of its provisions are merely product of quid pro quo which do not necessarily purport to codify the existing customs or established usage (practice) regarded as having an obligatory character. Therefore, it seems natural and in harmony with article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein.
The above considerations pertain specifically (but not exclusively) to the following:
-- The right of Transit passage through straits used for international navigation (Part III, Section 2, article 38).:hmmm:
-- The notion of "Exclusive Economic Zone" (Part V). - All matters regarding the International Seabed Area and the Concept of "Common Heritage of mankind" (Part XI).
2) In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognize (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia , the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
3) The right referred to in article 125 regarding access to and from the sea and freedom of transit of Land-locked States is one which is derived from mutual agreement of States concerned based on the principle of reciprocity.
4) The provisions of article 70, regarding "Right of States with Special Geographical Characteristics" are without prejudice to the exclusive right of the Coastal States of enclosed and semi-enclosed maritime regions (such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman) with large population predominantly dependent upon relatively poor stocks of living resources of the same regions.
5) Islets situated in enclosed and semi-enclosed seas which potentially can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, but due to climatic conditions, resource restriction or other limitations, have not yet been put to development, fall within the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 121 concerning "Regime of Islands", and have, therefore, full effect in boundary delimitation of various maritime zones of the interested Coastal States.
Furthermore, with regard to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time."
:()1::k_confused:

[orla trees]

orla trees!:Kaleun_Salute:



[COLOR=orange] Neither Iran nor the United States are signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS,...... basically; since Iran is NOT signatory to the UNCLOS and is under no compunctoion to recognize legal regimes,........
thereby. Iran has signed
Make your mind up:hmmm:
Are they a signed up or not?
Hint ( the answer is yes they signed)
If you want the full run down this is from the document both countriues submitted to the UN as the agreed maritime boundaries.
Point (1) is the most western point which is the intersection of the geodetic line drawn between point (0) having the coordinates of 55°42'15" E 26° 14' 45" N and point (2) having the coordinates of 55°47' 45" E 26° 16' 35" N with the lateral offshore boundary line between Oman and Ras Al Khaimah.
Long. E Lat. N Point (2) 55 47 45 26 16 35 Point (3) 55 52 15 26 18 50 Point (4) 56 06 45 26 28 40 Point (5) 56 08 35 26 31 05 Point (6) 56 10 25 26 32 50 Point (7) 56 14 30 26 35 25 Point (8) 56 16 30 26 35 35 Point (9) 56 19 40 26 37 00 W. Intersect of Larac 12m. Point (10) 56 33 00 26 42 15 E. Intersect of Larac 12m. Point (11) 56 41 00 26 44 15 Point (12) 56 44 00 26 41 35 Point (13) 56 45 15 26 39 40 Point (14) 56 47 45 26 35 15 Point (15) 56 47 30 26 25 15 Point (16) 56 48 05 26 22 00 Point (17) 56 47 50 26 16 30 Point (18) 56 48 00 26 11 35 Point (19) 56 50 15 26 03 05 Point (20) 56 49 50 25 58 05 Point (21) 56 51 30 25 45 20
Point (22) is the most southern point located at the intersection of the geodetic demarcation line drawn from point (21) (specified above) at an azimuth angle of 190° 00' 00" and of the lateral offshore boundary line between Oman and Sharjah.



If you wish to dispue any of those points on the map or find any gap in the established legal line then feel free to do so.
If however you are unable to dispute the legality of the stated and registered territorial position of both states then it comes back to the initial statement, which was "balderdash".

[Oberon]

HMS Oberon reporting.

Iran did sign the convention of UNCLOS, but has not ratified it:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#Iran%20Upon%20signatur e

There are a number of concerns it had, mostly more to do with its neighbours than with the likes of the US, back in the aftermath of the Iran/Iraq war. To be honest, if the US signed the UNCLOS it might actually be to its advantage when it comes to legal challenges in the Straits of Hormuz.

Oh, and in regards to Russkie ships passing through the Channel, it happens annually, I think even the Admiral Kuznetsov went through last year, probably to be near a port in case it broke down. It's nothing major, we usually just kick out a patrol boat, it comes over and says
Zdravstvuyte, tracks them in the waters to make sure they don't collide with a merchant vessel (which is a bigger threat than hitting a rogue missile whilst transitting the Channel) and then points them towards Murmansk or Syria when they come out the other side.

Now with Gibraltar...that's a bit more complicated... :dead:

[orla trees]

The key to the matter is the use of the term "innocent passage".
By using the term they admit that they recognise the legitimate territorial claim and the soveriegn authority of the state in question.
Innocent passage does not apply to international waters, it only applies to territorial waters.

[Aktungbby]

Rule 1: to every solution there is a problem; Currently there is the USS Truman solution to any foreseeable problem:O: Furthermore, with regard to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time." Said positions to be declared by Orla Trees: Point (1) is the most western point which is the intersection of the geodetic line drawn between point (0) having the coordinates of 55°42'15" E 26° 14' 45" N and point (2) having the coordinates of 55°47' 45" E 26° 16' 35" N with the lateral offshore boundary line between Oman and Ras Al Khaimah.
Long. E Lat. N Point (2) 55 47 45 26 16 35 Point (3) 55 52 15 26 18 50 Point (4) 56 06 45 26 28 40 Point (5) 56 08 35 26 31 05 Point (6) 56 10 25 26 32 50 Point (7) 56 14 30 26 35 25 Point (8) 56 16 30 26 35 35 Point (9) 56 19 40 26 37 00 W. Intersect of Larac 12m. Point (10) 56 33 00 26 42 15 E. Intersect of Larac 12m. Point (11) 56 41 00 26 44 15 Point (12) 56 44 00 26 41 35 Point (13) 56 45 15 26 39 40 Point (14) 56 47 45 26 35 15 Point (15) 56 47 30 26 25 15 Point (16) 56 48 05 26 22 00 Point (17) 56 47 50 26 16 30 Point (18) 56 48 00 26 11 35 Point (19) 56 50 15 26 03 05 Point (20) 56 49 50 25 58 05 Point (21) 56 51 30 25 45 20
Point (22) is the most southern point located at the intersection of the geodetic demarcation line drawn from point (21) (specified above) at an azimuth angle of 190° 00' 00" and of the lateral offshore boundary line between Oman and Sharjah.
Well Done!:salute:

[orla trees]

Rule 1: to every solution there is a problem; Currently there is the USS Truman solution to any foreseeable problem

The problem with your solution to the problem is that after spending a lot of money handing Iraq to the Iranians you now find yourselves with them as allies in your fight against the Islamic Reformation upstarts in Syria.
It isn't a great solution to a problem to be rattling your sabre at your new bestest buddies.
Instead it would appear to be a very silly approach to a problem.

Said positions to be declared by Orla Trees:
Said position lodged with the UN as a binding treaty signed by both Iran and Oman

[Aktungbby]

The problem with your solution to the problem is that after spending a lot of money handing Iraq to the Iranians you now find yourselves with them as allies in your fight against the Islamic Reformation upstarts in Syria.
It isn't a great solution to a problem to be rattling your sabre at your new bestest buddies.
Instead it would appear to be a very silly approach to a problem.


Said position lodged with the UN as a binding treaty signed by both Iran and Oman
I view the situation with circumcision:doh: ....It's all about the economy! I$I$ will do as good a job as Japan, Germany, Vietnam and the former Soviet Union and then China if any one's around in 4 years to partake of the 'tree of prosperity'- talk about Halacha BBY!:up:
(reread my sig)

[August]

An interesting viewpoint.
Now forgive me if my memory is fuzzy but wasn't the order to cancel the messed up operation made by your president at the request of his military commanders?
So are you saying that your president was so hawkish that he had difficulty cancelling the operation after the military had said it was somewhat screwed at Desert One?

That's quite a strawman you've built new guy but sorry no, I am not saying that at all. Hawkishness is certainly not the only reason for someone needing to be prompted into action and if you are familiar with "my" president then you'd know what those reasons might be. Hint, they're the same reasons that the operation fell apart in the first place. :yep:

Edit: BTW if you or anyone else is interested in this subject I found a rather well written article from July of 1980 that gives a good account of the incident. http://spectator.org/articles/34807/why-rescue-failed

[orla trees]

That's quite a strawman you've built new guy but sorry no, I am not saying that at all. Hawkishness is certainly not the only reason for someone needing to be prompted into action and if you are familiar with "my" president then you'd know what those reasons might be. Hint, they're the same reasons that the operation fell apart in the first place. :yep:

Edit: BTW if you or anyone else is interested in this subject I found a rather well written article from July of 1980 that gives a good account of the incident. http://spectator.org/articles/34807/why-rescue-failed
I see. So your president was extremely reluctant to order a mission which your military was most probably incapable of achieving.
So should he be praised for his reluctance in ordering a near imposible mission, or praised for attempting the long shot, or praised for scrubbing the mission when it fell apart?

[August]

I see. So your president was extremely reluctant to order a mission which your military was most probably incapable of achieving.
So should he be praised for his reluctance in ordering a near imposible mission, or praised for attempting the long shot, or praised for scrubbing the mission when it fell apart?

Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...

[orla trees]

Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...

Do you know the meaning of the word "obviously"?
I am seriously struggling to see your point.
It strikes me that you will just condemn your president regardless of the actions he took or the outcome.
Is it perhaps a party political issue you have? As in he is simply of the wrong party for you.
Your article states that the problems with the military capabilities available date from the era of the Vietnam fiasco. That puts the problem back to a decade before that President took office,
So how is he to blame for the long running problem stemming from a failed adventure launched on false information?

But I do like the soviet comparrison in your article. Not really relevant though is it, as firstly there were already soviet troops on the ground, they also had local allies on the ground in large numbers, and most importantly there was no evacuation or rescue planned with the airborne assault element of the invasion.
So in essence it is an entirely irrelevant attempt at a comparrison.
But as a bonus it was written before the Soviet adventure ended in the forgone conclusion of a humiliating military and poltical defeat.

So in conclusion it remains as, does your initial post have any validity at all?
or is just ya boo party political posturing?

[Jimbuna]

Well, that seems to be the end of that...young man.

[Oberon]

Ah, was it the voice from the limbo? :hmmm:

[STEED]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/multi.jpg

Is this a sneak peek at SubSims version of monopoly? :hmmm:

If so when does it go on sale?

[Sailor Steve]

It's been out for some time now, and for free. All you have to do is play your cards wrong.

[STEED]

It's been out for some time now, and for free. All you have to do is play your cards wrong.

I shall past on that.

I want the board game where the winner is who has bought the most sub fleets. :)

[Aktungbby]

Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.

All you have to do is play your cards wrong.:sign_yeah: He seemed a tad abrasive for a 'newcomer' who shouldn't have an axe to grind...till I looked up orla trees and got a handle on uncircumcised fruit And jus figgered he warn't...kosher :woot: Two past candidates, now conspicuously non participatin' came to mind.:hmmm:

[August]

So who was the troll? I think the membership have a right to know who would pull a stunt like that on us.

[Nippelspanner]

So who was the troll? I think the membership have a right to know who would pull a stunt like that on us.
First thing I have to do in 2016 is to agree with August.
This is the end! :har:

No, really, I agree.

[Betonov]

Why not.
I also agree with August :)

[Oberon]

I'm Brian and so's my wife!

[mapuc]

I agree witth August too.

Markus

[Nippelspanner]

So who was the troll? I think the membership have a right to know who would pull a stunt like that on us.
I agree.
I also agree with August :)
I agree witth August too.

http://i.imgur.com/XDtOfGO.jpg

[Jimbuna]

I think it fair that anyone being so curious as to whom it was should enquire of Neal if it means so much to them.

My own opinion is one that it may be unwise to reveal the name of the individual concerned because it may not be someone who has been keelhauled or brigged but rather someone with an existing account who has simply created another for whatever purpose or reason.

It could be any or none of the above but I believe only Neal should be the one to provide the answer if one was to be forthcoming.

@Neal: Sorry bud but I think I successfully managed to kick this one into the long grass :)

[ikalugin]

Well, atleast noone thinks that I am a bot/second account of some other user anymore.

[Oberon]

Well, atleast noone thinks that I am a bot/second account of some other user anymore.

Indeed, I'm the bot from your account. :yep: