Shock Footage Shows Iranian Drones & Speedboats Swarm US Warship

submitted by Faty from titanblogging.com

all 46 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]transbob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

I tend to agree when Iranians say that they don't need foreigners providing security for their country.

United States has a reputation for going around the world and making war with other people when in fact it has no business being there in the first place.

You don't see Iranian warships floating up the Mississippi River do you?

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

First of all - foreigners are not providing security FOR Iran, except for the Armenians who watch the azeris and the ruzzians who are providing fighters jets, and the Indians....huh... actually Iran DOES need foreigners to protect them.

Secondly, the international waterways of the gulf are not "their country", and Iran trying to make it so, is one cause of tension here.

Thirdly, this is about the united states sailing freedom of navigation missions in international water to keep the spice flowing. If you want to try and simulate what a day or a week would be like with Hormuz closed to traffic - you could try not eating or filling up your car or taking any medication. Because if Hormuz is successfully closed by Iran, then civilisation will collapse, there will be billions dead in a month as no food or medicine will ever travel by road or plane again. There will be no qatari LNG in Europe or asia. Literally billions will die - if you had half a brain, you'd be celebrating America's freedom of navigation missions especially as Iran has seized multiple ships this year already.

Finally, dipshit, no, you don't see Iran floating up the Mississippi, for good reason that the international waters of the gulf are international and the Mississippi river is not. Big surprise. I bet you felt like such a big brain, writing that.

Meanwhile ships from every country in the world dock at American ports to load and unload cargo: exactly what you're claiming doesn't happen in the Mississippi river. Yeah, lots of nations visit America's ports, and there's nothing wrong about that

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Finally, dipshit, no, you

It's time to test out the block user function.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Don't get too offended, snowflake

I think you'll agree, in retrospect, that it was pretty dipshittery of you to compare an international sea lane, to an inland river. Wasn't it. Don't get too precious, baby.

I dont know why the USS Panay incident means we no longer get to sail gunboats up the Yangtze, but generally I agree with you, I'd like to see more foreign navies navigating river courses for gunboat diplomacy reasons.

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Don't get too offended, snowflake

I have fairly well defined boundaries in my life and one of them is that when people decide to insult me while having an intelligent conversation well that's when I stopped talking to you.

BTW, insults are one of the favorite tools that children use to win debates.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay well if you ever find yourself in an intelligent conversation, let me know.

There's absolutely nothing intelligent about

  1. Mistakenly asserting that this is about defending Iran

  2. Mistakenly asserting that the United States has no business in an international waterway

  3. Making the uninformed comparison between an international sea lane, and the internal river Mississippi

You were not having an intelligent conversation, because you didn't bring any intelligence.

And you're a precious snowflake so go ahead and block me.

Then, in future, you'll never have to see someone like me taking the time to list your misunderstandings and provide terms for you to Google. You can continue trying to sound intelligent, armed with a bunch of fake nonsense, and you'll never have to experience someone correcting your ridiculous dipshittery

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I'm here to provide information, engage in meaningful conversations, and assist with questions to the best of my abilities. If you have any specific topics or questions you'd like to discuss, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide you with accurate and useful information.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You didn't provide any meaningful information, just fake lies that you had internalised.

If you want a meaningful conversation, then feel free to steer things back on a factual course. We can talk about how grateful we are that American service people are keeping the most important sea lane in the whole world open - on behalf of, and benefiting the whole planet. Literally society would collapse and billions would die, if the mullahs had their way in Hormuz.

Ask your chatgpt why no other countries sail between American ports, like the Mississippi. Ask it about the navigation acts. Maybe you'll actually learn something today, and you can finally say that you had an intelligent conversation

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why don't other countries sail between American ports like the Mississippi, and can you tell me about the Navigation Acts?

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is the Jones Act

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

tranny alert

I think you'll find you're overestimating your capacity for providing information, or engage in meaningful conversations.

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Africa don't play all that LGB weirdo s***.

https://youtu.be/WxrFn5md4ik

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What's your point in terms of "meaningful conversation"?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

tranny alert

I think you'll find you're overstating your capacity for "an intelligent conversation"

[–]kingsmeg 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

The Straights of Hormuz are not 'international waters'.

Wiki:

To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

And of course USA has not signed that convention, therefore they have no right of navigation granted by it.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

True, it's not international water in the sense that "it's not owned by anyone", but international in the sense that, international law and ancient conventional allows properly flagged and insured vessels to transit a reasonable path through waters like the straits. That's in UNCLOS

It's kind of interesting that neither Iran nor USA are down with UNCLOS but that matters not in the slightest for a couple of reasons.

  1. UNCLOS just formalises the law that has existed since ancient times, the "common law" I guess, and the royal navy and probably Romans and Carthaginians before them would be keeping up this kind of law a long time before UNCLOS

  2. If the USA didn't think straits laws were real then we'd be living in a very very different world. Singapore, Taiwan, Istanbul, Gibraltar, other straits start to look very different if UNCLOS's transit provisions weren't already treated as ancient law by everyone

  3. What USA are doing, by conducting freedom of navigation missions orderly, in flagged insured vessels (and as we read in the propaganda OP, within the correct shipping lanes!) is directly furthering the aims and goals of UNCLOS, and directly supporting the global mission, so well done to USA for conducting this very important mission

[–]kingsmeg 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Pretty sure you can't use UNCLOS to bring in attack craft into territorial waters that you're supposed to be transiting peacefully. But then 'following international law' was never one of USA's strong points. That's why they made up the 'rules-based order', different from international law in that USA makes the rules and everyone else has to follow them, but not USA itself.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

They aren't attacking Iran just transiting normally. Why did you think someone was at war with Iran?!

The USA did not make up the "rules based order", the USA did not even send a delegate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna

You could argue the rules based order is even older. The treaty of tordesillas in 1494 - wasn't that a rules based order?

Rome and the Parthians had a short list of what neutral Armenia, between the two empires, were allowed to do. They set down a system of orderly rules for the surrounding client kingdoms to prevent the outbreak of major war between the two powers.

[–]kingsmeg 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

They aren't attacking Iran just transiting normally. Why did you think someone was at war with Iran?!

Because they told everyone they were bringing in equipment and soldiers specifically to fight Iran, then they transited Iran's territorial waters with attack craft. So no, the provisions of that convention do not apply for multiple reasons, and Iran was well within their rights to forbid transit (which I'm sure they did), and if they entered Iran's territorial waters without permission, Iran would have been within their rights to sink the ships. What USA did was an act of war, which they're trying to pass off as Iranian aggression.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Sorry but you're really off the mark here dude.

On a number of points.

They don't need Iran's permission to conduct transit. It's not an attack on iran to transit without their permission.

That's because of the ancient law of transit rights that I spoke about earlier, that are as true for Iran as they are for Istanbul, Gibraltar, Singapore etc

they told everyone they were bringing in equipment and soldiers specifically to fight Iran,

Nope, they told everyone they were bringing in the boys because Iran has captured multiple tankers recently who were just doing a normal, legal peaceful transit.

Iran is the aggressor upon the ancient laws which govern international commerce.

And for that reason we are very grateful to the USA for keeping the world's most important commercial waterway open, so that billions don't die for lack of food or medicine

[–]kingsmeg 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

UNCLOS superseded previous laws and conventions. That's how these things work.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

But you already told us that neither USA nor Iran are signatories. So its neither here nor there.

Are you going to ignore my correction: that actually this is Iran's aggression, and not America's?

[–]kingsmeg 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The USA did not make up the "rules based order", the USA did not even send a delegate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna

You could argue the rules based order is even older. The treaty of tordesillas in 1494 - wasn't that a rules based order?

Rome and the Parthians had a short list of what neutral Armenia, between the two empires, were allowed to do. They set down a system of orderly rules for the surrounding client kingdoms to prevent the outbreak of major war between the two powers.

Thanks for clearing up who you are and who you work for.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay who am I and who do I work for?

I think you're saying: "wow what a suave and persuasive saiditor, I wish I knew more about the world so I didn't sound so dumb when talking to him"

Edit I don't think we have spoken much, but i have an open offer to all of saidit. I would love to do a video chat with you, so we can talk face to face.

Then you'll know exactly who I am and who I work for. It's not very interesting and definitely doesn't involve the post-Napoleon Victorian great powers.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh no! However will the thousands of US marines aboard the amphibious warfare ships cope with lo-fi persian SPEEDY BOIS??

Somehow I think we'll be okay

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is why God invented the CIWS