kollang
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 4,484
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I love your signature, mate.
Breaking: Iran detains U.S navy soldiers entering Iranian territorial waters
- Thread starter Serpentine
- Start date
- Status
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Daneshmand
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,109
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
LOL. Look at the date of that video 15th November 2015. They made this video and released it two months ago in order to "scare" Iran and "assure" their vassal dictator allies in the region of the American "might" to protect those puppet dictatorships of lilliputian states who have provided US with whole range of naval and airbases to "contain" Iran. Then this happens to the same squadrons depicted and labelled in the video (you can see the same Captain who was apologizing in Iran at the beginning of the video talking about their "capabilities" and "massive firepower"):
Last edited:
You guys act unprofessional by firing rockets with barely few minutes to spare to inform any ships nearby. And the Iranians claimed they never fired any rockets or had any exercises.
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Very professional and ethical conduct of the Iranian Navy in the face of intrusion by the unwanted foreign entity in the Iranian waters. That must teach the unwanted foreign entity that sovereignty does matter on that part of the world, as well.
The toned down rhetoric by Secretary Kerry also proves they know they are the one on the wrong.
Besides, this sort of images of the unwanted foreign entities being detained and handcuffed changes the traditional discourse of superpower conduct. From the images, indeed, it looks like a professional army conducting anti-piracy operation to detain a bunch of well-fed criminals.
The toned down rhetoric by Secretary Kerry also proves they know they are the one on the wrong.
Besides, this sort of images of the unwanted foreign entities being detained and handcuffed changes the traditional discourse of superpower conduct. From the images, indeed, it looks like a professional army conducting anti-piracy operation to detain a bunch of well-fed criminals.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
My type contribute to the progress of a nation. Your judgment is premature.
My point is that one should be realistic about how to approach geopolitical developments in the region.
If territorial integrity is violated, SOP is as follows:
1. Warning
2. Escort
3. Attack / Defend
Whatever...
US is also more powerful and capable at present.
No problem with adopting hardline stance but no need to escalate engagements in matters that can be easily addressed.
You don't draw attention towards yourself, you maintain low-profile but make a stand when necessary.
They have been killing terrorists. Who wants terrorists to thrive in their backyard? You?
Pakistan is a 'responsible' nuclear power, not a trigger-happy one. However, Pakistan have drawn a red line for all nations. Whenever US crossed it, an appropriate response was given.
Last edited:
Madali
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2015
- Messages
- 2,717
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
I agree. I only said that in a response to claiming Iran's army doesn't act professionally. All armies are professional otherwise they can't function at all.
Even unprofessional soldiers are usually a rarity because if an army had mostly unprofessional soldiers, it would collapse. How would rules be followed? How would hierarchy be respect? Won't the chain of command be affected? How can battle plans be implemented?
-SINAN-
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 16,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Mate, don't know how am i going to explain it....i mean, i'm trying hard.....
Rules of Engagement.....we don't shoot the Greek aircraft that violates our airspace....why ? Because they didn't shoot our plane...Syria did, so we changed our RoR and tit for tat. Every airplane approaching to Turkish border from Syria is a legitimate target for us. And we decleared this to the world....
Let me say again....."Because they shot our plane in 2012, rules of engagements changed in Syria Border regarding Syrian Planes".
People, countries may like it or not, this simply the consequence for shooting an unarmed Turkish reconnaince aircraft for briefly violating Syrian airspace.
I simply don't understand your reasoning....
Mate, since 2012 Turkish Jets not a single time happened to be in Syrian Airspace !!!!! Why because they shot a our plane for briefly violating their border.....So, these guys shot our plane for briefly violating their airspace, and you think that, we would send some more to Syrian Airspace ?
I know you don't clearly know these things and getting your news from Russian propaganda machine...but you can sort it yourself... I mean, they shoot our plane, we shoot their helicopter an jet, they are hostile to us, what's stopping them to shot our plane if violate their border, why would we risk it ? Think about it.
P.S: I repeated some sentences again and again to be understood well.
jack 86000
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
kollang
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 4,484
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
He meant the F-14's story
Madali
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2015
- Messages
- 2,717
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
A bit more background info on the event from US side,
How U.S. sailors almost started a crisis with Iran - LA Times
How U.S. sailors almost started a crisis with Iran - LA Times
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Well for what its worth I thin the Iranian govt acted professionally here in releasing US troops in an expeditious manner along with their equipment . Propaganda photo ops were not exactly unexpected given the US and Iran aren't buddy buddy, just somewhat less hostile than before given a deal could be made.
As of now its a storm in a teacup
mohsen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,710
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
U.S. Radically Changes Its Story of the Boats in Iranian Waters: to an Even More Suspicious Version
Glenn Greenwald
Jan. 15 2016, 7:28 p.m.
When news first broke of the detention of two U.S. ships in Iranian territorial waters, the U.S. media — aside from depicting it as an act of Iranian aggression — uncritically cited the U.S. government’s explanation for what happened. One of the boats, we were told, experienced “mechanical failure” and thus “inadvertently drifted” into Iranian waters. On CBS News, Joe Biden told Charlie Rose, “One of the boats had engine failure, drifted into Iranian waters.”
Provided their government script, U.S. media outlets repeatedly cited these phrases — “mechanical failure” and “inadvertently drifted” and “boat in distress” — like some sort of hypnotic mantra. Here’s Eli Lake of Bloomberg News explaining yesterday why this was all Iran’s fault:
Iran’s handling of the situation violated international norms. … Two small U.S. sea craft transiting between Kuwait and Bahrain strayed into Iranian territorial waters because of a mechanical failure, according to the U.S. side. This means the boats were in distress.
Lake quoted John McCain as saying that “boats do not lose their sovereign immune status when they are in distress at sea.” The night the news broke, Reuters quickly said the “boats may have inadvertently drifted into Iranian waters” and “another U.S. official said mechanical issues may have disabled one of the boats, leading to a situation in which both ships drifted inadvertently into Iranian waters.”
The U.S. government itself now says this story was false. There was no engine failure, and the boats were never “in distress.” Once the sailors were released, APreported, “In Washington, a defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure as the reason the boats entered Iranian waters.”
Instead, said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference this morning, the sailors “made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters.” He added that they “obviously had misnavigated” when, in the words of the New York Times, “they came within a few miles of Farsi Island, where Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has a naval base.” The LA Times conveyed this new official explanation: “A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course. Or the crew members may have taken a shortcut into Iranian waters as they headed for the refueling ship, officials said.” The initial slogan “inadvertently drifted” — suggesting a disabled boat helplessly floating wherever the ocean takes it — has now been replaced in the script by “inadvertently strayed,” meaning the boats were erroneously steered into Iranian waters without any intention to go there.
It is, of course, theoretically possible that this newest rendition of events is what happened. But there are multiple reasons to suspect otherwise. To begin with, U.S. sailors frequently travel between Bahrain and Kuwait, two key U.S. allies, the former of which hosts the Fifth Fleet headquarters; these were familiar waters.
Moreover, at no point did either of the ships notify anyone that they had inadvertently “misnavigated” into Iranian territorial waters, a significant enough event that would warrant some sort of radio or other notification. “U.S. defense officials were befuddled about how both vessels’ navigational systems failed to alert them that they were entering Iranian waters,” reported the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youseff on Tuesday night. Carter sought to explain this away by saying, “It may have been they were trying to sort it out at the time when they encountered the Iranian boats.” Not one sailor on either of the boats could communicate the “error”? Beyond that, “misnavigating” within a few miles of an Iranian Guard Corps naval base is a striking coincidence (the LA Times summarized an exciting and remarkable tale of how the boats were perhaps running out of gas, entered Iranian waters merely as a “shortcut,” experienced engine failure when they tried to escape, and then on top of all these misfortunes, experienced radio failure).
What we know for certain is that the storyline of “mechanical failure” and “poor U.S. boat in distress” that was originally propagated — on which Lake exclusively relied to blame the Iranians — was complete fiction. At least according to the government’s latest version, the boats were working just fine. But, as always, the bulk of the U.S. media narrative was built around totally unverified, self-serving claims from the U.S. government, which, yet again, turned out to be completely false.
Perhaps there are valid reasons why the U.S. military — while the sailors were still in Iranian custody — would falsely claim that the boats experienced “mechanical failure” and were in “distress,” as that would excuse an otherwise intentional act (one of the sailors in the video taken by Iran claimed they were “having engine issues”). But the fact that there is a good reason for the U.S. government to make false claims does not excuse the U.S. media’s uncritical regurgitation of them nor the construction of a narrative based on them depicting Iran as the aggressor; it may be shocking to hear, but the U.S. government and U.S. media are supposed to have different functions.
This happens over and over. A significant incident occurs, such as the U.S. bombing of an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The U.S. government makes claims about what happened. The U.S. media uncritically repeat them over and over. And then the U.S. government just blithely changes its story repeatedly, implicitly admitting that the tales it originally told were utterly false. But the next time a similar event happens, there is no heightened skepticism of U.S. government claims: its media treat them as Gospel.
The behavior of the U.S. media in this case was downright embarrassing, even by their standards. CNN’s Erin Burnett openly and repeatedly suggested that this was a calculated move by Iran to humiliate the U.S. and Obama during his State of the Union address (as though Iran hypnotized the sailors into entering its territorial waters on cue). And more generally, this unauthorized trespass into Iranian territorial waters was continuously depicted as an act of Iranian aggression (contrast that with how the U.S. government suggested it would be in Turkey’s rights not only to intercept but to shoot down any Russian jet that even briefly traverses its airspace). Article 25 of the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, titled “Rights of protection of the coastal State,” states that “the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.”
All you need to know about the U.S. media is this: Just imagine what they would be saying and doing if two Iranian ships had entered U.S. territorial waters with no warning or permission, and then the Iranian government lied about why that happened. And that’s to say nothing of the massive apologia that spewed forth in 1988 when, in roughly the same areas as these ships “misnavigated” into, the U.S. Navy blew an Iranian civilian jet out of the sky, killing 290 passengers, 66 of whom were children, and then tried to cover up its responsibility.
So, to recap the U.S. media narrative: when the U.S. Navy enters Iran’s territorial waters without permission or notice, and Iran detains them and then releases them within 24 hours, Iran is the aggressor; and the same is true when Iran aggressively allows one of its civilian jets to be shot down by the U.S. Navy. And no matter how many times the U.S. government issues patently false statements about its military actions, those statements are entitled to unquestioning, uncritical treatment as Truth the next time a similar incident occurs.
Additional reporting: Andrew Fishman
------
put this beside the IRGC story of malfunctional navigation systems in both boats simultaneously
Glenn GreenwaldJan. 15 2016, 7:28 p.m.
When news first broke of the detention of two U.S. ships in Iranian territorial waters, the U.S. media — aside from depicting it as an act of Iranian aggression — uncritically cited the U.S. government’s explanation for what happened. One of the boats, we were told, experienced “mechanical failure” and thus “inadvertently drifted” into Iranian waters. On CBS News, Joe Biden told Charlie Rose, “One of the boats had engine failure, drifted into Iranian waters.”
Provided their government script, U.S. media outlets repeatedly cited these phrases — “mechanical failure” and “inadvertently drifted” and “boat in distress” — like some sort of hypnotic mantra. Here’s Eli Lake of Bloomberg News explaining yesterday why this was all Iran’s fault:
Iran’s handling of the situation violated international norms. … Two small U.S. sea craft transiting between Kuwait and Bahrain strayed into Iranian territorial waters because of a mechanical failure, according to the U.S. side. This means the boats were in distress.
Lake quoted John McCain as saying that “boats do not lose their sovereign immune status when they are in distress at sea.” The night the news broke, Reuters quickly said the “boats may have inadvertently drifted into Iranian waters” and “another U.S. official said mechanical issues may have disabled one of the boats, leading to a situation in which both ships drifted inadvertently into Iranian waters.”
The U.S. government itself now says this story was false. There was no engine failure, and the boats were never “in distress.” Once the sailors were released, APreported, “In Washington, a defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure as the reason the boats entered Iranian waters.”
Instead, said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference this morning, the sailors “made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters.” He added that they “obviously had misnavigated” when, in the words of the New York Times, “they came within a few miles of Farsi Island, where Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has a naval base.” The LA Times conveyed this new official explanation: “A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course. Or the crew members may have taken a shortcut into Iranian waters as they headed for the refueling ship, officials said.” The initial slogan “inadvertently drifted” — suggesting a disabled boat helplessly floating wherever the ocean takes it — has now been replaced in the script by “inadvertently strayed,” meaning the boats were erroneously steered into Iranian waters without any intention to go there.
It is, of course, theoretically possible that this newest rendition of events is what happened. But there are multiple reasons to suspect otherwise. To begin with, U.S. sailors frequently travel between Bahrain and Kuwait, two key U.S. allies, the former of which hosts the Fifth Fleet headquarters; these were familiar waters.
Moreover, at no point did either of the ships notify anyone that they had inadvertently “misnavigated” into Iranian territorial waters, a significant enough event that would warrant some sort of radio or other notification. “U.S. defense officials were befuddled about how both vessels’ navigational systems failed to alert them that they were entering Iranian waters,” reported the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youseff on Tuesday night. Carter sought to explain this away by saying, “It may have been they were trying to sort it out at the time when they encountered the Iranian boats.” Not one sailor on either of the boats could communicate the “error”? Beyond that, “misnavigating” within a few miles of an Iranian Guard Corps naval base is a striking coincidence (the LA Times summarized an exciting and remarkable tale of how the boats were perhaps running out of gas, entered Iranian waters merely as a “shortcut,” experienced engine failure when they tried to escape, and then on top of all these misfortunes, experienced radio failure).
What we know for certain is that the storyline of “mechanical failure” and “poor U.S. boat in distress” that was originally propagated — on which Lake exclusively relied to blame the Iranians — was complete fiction. At least according to the government’s latest version, the boats were working just fine. But, as always, the bulk of the U.S. media narrative was built around totally unverified, self-serving claims from the U.S. government, which, yet again, turned out to be completely false.
Perhaps there are valid reasons why the U.S. military — while the sailors were still in Iranian custody — would falsely claim that the boats experienced “mechanical failure” and were in “distress,” as that would excuse an otherwise intentional act (one of the sailors in the video taken by Iran claimed they were “having engine issues”). But the fact that there is a good reason for the U.S. government to make false claims does not excuse the U.S. media’s uncritical regurgitation of them nor the construction of a narrative based on them depicting Iran as the aggressor; it may be shocking to hear, but the U.S. government and U.S. media are supposed to have different functions.
This happens over and over. A significant incident occurs, such as the U.S. bombing of an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The U.S. government makes claims about what happened. The U.S. media uncritically repeat them over and over. And then the U.S. government just blithely changes its story repeatedly, implicitly admitting that the tales it originally told were utterly false. But the next time a similar event happens, there is no heightened skepticism of U.S. government claims: its media treat them as Gospel.
The behavior of the U.S. media in this case was downright embarrassing, even by their standards. CNN’s Erin Burnett openly and repeatedly suggested that this was a calculated move by Iran to humiliate the U.S. and Obama during his State of the Union address (as though Iran hypnotized the sailors into entering its territorial waters on cue). And more generally, this unauthorized trespass into Iranian territorial waters was continuously depicted as an act of Iranian aggression (contrast that with how the U.S. government suggested it would be in Turkey’s rights not only to intercept but to shoot down any Russian jet that even briefly traverses its airspace). Article 25 of the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, titled “Rights of protection of the coastal State,” states that “the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.”
All you need to know about the U.S. media is this: Just imagine what they would be saying and doing if two Iranian ships had entered U.S. territorial waters with no warning or permission, and then the Iranian government lied about why that happened. And that’s to say nothing of the massive apologia that spewed forth in 1988 when, in roughly the same areas as these ships “misnavigated” into, the U.S. Navy blew an Iranian civilian jet out of the sky, killing 290 passengers, 66 of whom were children, and then tried to cover up its responsibility.
So, to recap the U.S. media narrative: when the U.S. Navy enters Iran’s territorial waters without permission or notice, and Iran detains them and then releases them within 24 hours, Iran is the aggressor; and the same is true when Iran aggressively allows one of its civilian jets to be shot down by the U.S. Navy. And no matter how many times the U.S. government issues patently false statements about its military actions, those statements are entitled to unquestioning, uncritical treatment as Truth the next time a similar incident occurs.
Additional reporting: Andrew Fishman
------
put this beside the IRGC story of malfunctional navigation systems in both boats simultaneously
Last edited:
Daneshmand
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,109
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
U.S. Radically Changes Its Story of the Boats in Iranian Waters: to an Even More Suspicious Version
Jan. 15 2016, 7:28 p.m.
When news first broke of the detention of two U.S. ships in Iranian territorial waters, the U.S. media — aside from depicting it as an act of Iranian aggression — uncritically cited the U.S. government’s explanation for what happened. One of the boats, we were told, experienced “mechanical failure” and thus “inadvertently drifted” into Iranian waters. On CBS News, Joe Biden told Charlie Rose, “One of the boats had engine failure, drifted into Iranian waters.”
Provided their government script, U.S. media outlets repeatedly cited these phrases — “mechanical failure” and “inadvertently drifted” and “boat in distress” — like some sort of hypnotic mantra. Here’s Eli Lake of Bloomberg News explaining yesterday why this was all Iran’s fault:
Iran’s handling of the situation violated international norms. … Two small U.S. sea craft transiting between Kuwait and Bahrain strayed into Iranian territorial waters because of a mechanical failure, according to the U.S. side. This means the boats were in distress.
Lake quoted John McCain as saying that “boats do not lose their sovereign immune status when they are in distress at sea.” The night the news broke, Reuters quickly said the “boats may have inadvertently drifted into Iranian waters” and “another U.S. official said mechanical issues may have disabled one of the boats, leading to a situation in which both ships drifted inadvertently into Iranian waters.”
The U.S. government itself now says this story was false. There was no engine failure, and the boats were never “in distress.” Once the sailors were released, APreported, “In Washington, a defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure as the reason the boats entered Iranian waters.”
Instead, said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference this morning, the sailors “made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters.” He added that they “obviously had misnavigated” when, in the words of the New York Times, “they came within a few miles of Farsi Island, where Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has a naval base.” The LA Times conveyed this new official explanation: “A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course. Or the crew members may have taken a shortcut into Iranian waters as they headed for the refueling ship, officials said.” The initial slogan “inadvertently drifted” — suggesting a disabled boat helplessly floating wherever the ocean takes it — has now been replaced in the script by “inadvertently strayed,” meaning the boats were erroneously steered into Iranian waters without any intention to go there.
It is, of course, theoretically possible that this newest rendition of events is what happened. But there are multiple reasons to suspect otherwise. To begin with, U.S. sailors frequently travel between Bahrain and Kuwait, two key U.S. allies, the former of which hosts the Fifth Fleet headquarters; these were familiar waters.
Moreover, at no point did either of the ships notify anyone that they had inadvertently “misnavigated” into Iranian territorial waters, a significant enough event that would warrant some sort of radio or other notification. “U.S. defense officials were befuddled about how both vessels’ navigational systems failed to alert them that they were entering Iranian waters,” reported the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youseff on Tuesday night. Carter sought to explain this away by saying, “It may have been they were trying to sort it out at the time when they encountered the Iranian boats.” Not one sailor on either of the boats could communicate the “error”? Beyond that, “misnavigating” within a few miles of an Iranian Guard Corps naval base is a striking coincidence (the LA Times summarized an exciting and remarkable tale of how the boats were perhaps running out of gas, entered Iranian waters merely as a “shortcut,” experienced engine failure when they tried to escape, and then on top of all these misfortunes, experienced radio failure).
What we know for certain is that the storyline of “mechanical failure” and “poor U.S. boat in distress” that was originally propagated — on which Lake exclusively relied to blame the Iranians — was complete fiction. At least according to the government’s latest version, the boats were working just fine. But, as always, the bulk of the U.S. media narrative was built around totally unverified, self-serving claims from the U.S. government, which, yet again, turned out to be completely false.
Perhaps there are valid reasons why the U.S. military — while the sailors were still in Iranian custody — would falsely claim that the boats experienced “mechanical failure” and were in “distress,” as that would excuse an otherwise intentional act (one of the sailors in the video taken by Iran claimed they were “having engine issues”). But the fact that there is a good reason for the U.S. government to make false claims does not excuse the U.S. media’s uncritical regurgitation of them nor the construction of a narrative based on them depicting Iran as the aggressor; it may be shocking to hear, but the U.S. government and U.S. media are supposed to have different functions.
This happens over and over. A significant incident occurs, such as the U.S. bombing of an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The U.S. government makes claims about what happened. The U.S. media uncritically repeat them over and over. And then the U.S. government just blithely changes its story repeatedly, implicitly admitting that the tales it originally told were utterly false. But the next time a similar event happens, there is no heightened skepticism of U.S. government claims: its media treat them as Gospel.
The behavior of the U.S. media in this case was downright embarrassing, even by their standards. CNN’s Erin Burnett openly and repeatedly suggested that this was a calculated move by Iran to humiliate the U.S. and Obama during his State of the Union address (as though Iran hypnotized the sailors into entering its territorial waters on cue). And more generally, this unauthorized trespass into Iranian territorial waters was continuously depicted as an act of Iranian aggression (contrast that with how the U.S. government suggested it would be in Turkey’s rights not only to intercept but to shoot down any Russian jet that even briefly traverses its airspace). Article 25 of the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, titled “Rights of protection of the coastal State,” states that “the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.”
All you need to know about the U.S. media is this: Just imagine what they would be saying and doing if two Iranian ships had entered U.S. territorial waters with no warning or permission, and then the Iranian government lied about why that happened. And that’s to say nothing of the massive apologia that spewed forth in 1988 when, in roughly the same areas as these ships “misnavigated” into, the U.S. Navy blew an Iranian civilian jet out of the sky, killing 290 passengers, 66 of whom were children, and then tried to cover up its responsibility.
So, to recap the U.S. media narrative: when the U.S. Navy enters Iran’s territorial waters without permission or notice, and Iran detains them and then releases them within 24 hours, Iran is the aggressor; and the same is true when Iran aggressively allows one of its civilian jets to be shot down by the U.S. Navy. And no matter how many times the U.S. government issues patently false statements about its military actions, those statements are entitled to unquestioning, uncritical treatment as Truth the next time a similar incident occurs.
Additional reporting: Andrew Fishman
------
put this beside the IRGC story of malfunctional navigation systems in both boats simultaneously
Very well written
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
