This has been discussed previously in this thread. WTF don’t you understand?
I’m glad you see it that way but that is not really an opinion. That is a fact. No ifs. Ands. Or buts.
We as jurors in the court of public opinion are allowed (indeed encouraged) to draw reasonable inferences.
Didn’t say you did or didn’t. I once again state my amazement at your nonchalant-ness at this issue as you are someone actively sailing in that area. But since you’re there I certainly respect your ability to be nonchalant about it.
Have you seen them coming within the very near range shown in the recent videos?
Based on…
Illogical thinking, irrationality
Small boat, allowed to come dangerously close, area of the world with ideological crazies, state sponsor of terrorism… You’re being intentionally obtuse now
We already looked at a possible political angle. Let’s look at it from another angle.
Our military is interested in Iranian capabilities and responses. So how can we learn from them? We provoke them. Then we watch and listen. We watch their responses, what units get activated (and which don’t) and from where (or where not). We listen to their signals and intelligence. We listen for who responds, who tells who what, how long it takes, how far up the chain-of-command it goes. We look for changes between now and the last time. All that info then goes to various intel folks who crunch it where it goes out to military and political folks.
Then we repeat by provoking again. And again. And again. Each time watching, listening, learning, because that’s how it’s done.
Other countries and organizations also do that to us. They provoke, watch, listen and learn. They do it to learn about us.
So, again, the fact that this incident happened shouldn’t be a bit interesting. (If they didn’t happen it’d be real interesting.) What’s interesting here is that the United States and the President decided to mention this particular incident.
1 Like
They were closer than needed to be.
1 Like
WAY closer
Seriously? You have heard of common sense right? We as jurors are told that we “don’t leave our common sense at the door.” It’s a common jury instruction. People possessed of common sense know these things.
Ah ok, so it’s your opinion… Got it.
I’m sure NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Vox, etc. will have their exposé with their unnamed sources very soon. Please post then as your “proof”.
Chase that laser pointer! It’s gonna get you! No! It’s getting away!
Now. On to a more serious subject, where can I get on of these flying gunboats? Amazon? Ebay?..Alibaba?
They are called helicopters. They don’t shoot up. Nor do the weapons on a naval ship being threatened/ harassed by a much smaller boat that could perhaps be loaded with explosives. They shoot down at the target
.Perhaps you would be accommodating if the tweet said “Shoot em up”, or “Defend yourselves.” Probably not.
Recheck the title of the thread. And Trump quote friend.
I answered your question. Flying gunboats
Me too. Gun boats shadowing us, coming alongside within spitting distance, photographing our array of antennas, dhows loitering nearby but never swarms of speedboats simulating attack scenarios. That was awhile ago; this is acceptable now?
1 Like
Nobody calls them that. Quit while your behind. Attack choppers are called “gunships”. And he was talking about boats on the water.
I corrected that phrase for you. I’m not condoning the bombing of Pearl Harbor but if a person reads an unbiased 40 year prelude between Japan & the US before 1941 it can be understood why many Japanese thought the attack was justified. In the long run it worked out very well for the US. Bill Clinton’s bombing of Iraq almost immediately after the Monica Lewinsky drama hit the stage didn’t make such an impact. We win some & lose some.