Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
You can defend the US Navy all you want, but its loss of credibility is real whether you like it or not.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just look at the comments.
Even US shill OSINT is inferior

View attachment 130503
View attachment 130504
View attachment 130505
View attachment 130506

This problem isn't unique to the US Navy, Nasa is having the same problems. There is a good Chinese Film Let the Bullets Fly, you should check it out if you haven't already.
You might want to read the rest of my quote. I emboldened it as well:
That is a possibility as well, or he is slow and unable to read the room. "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence", as Napoleon once said. This quote is especially fitting for the US Navy given the string of controversies and scandals it was embroiled in. I understand that everyone here do not like the US, but matters like these require some critical thinking and extreme cool-headedness, especially if you understand the weaponry on the carriers, the formations of an American CSG and the roles of the types of ships in the group, the tech level of an older version of an Iranian ASBM, and etc.
I am saying that everyone should be cautious about getting too exciting and jumping to conclusions without further evidence. I agree that the seeds of distrust have sown by the captain himself due to incompetence or panic. However, we cannot resolutely conclude that the US carrier was indeed struck. As for the comments and NASA, I have no clue what you are trying to convey.

View attachment 130507
Thoughts on this comment? Would he really be stupid enough to lie twice in the same way? If it was indeed a lie, then I am almost certain carrier was hit.

此地无银三百两
You should compare the two organization and configuration of the aircraft on the deck within the two photos before jumping that fast to a conclusion. You and I have been on this forum long enough to be wary of the small details found in photos.
 

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
You might want to read the rest of my quote. I emboldened it as well:

I am saying that everyone should be cautious about getting too exciting and jumping to conclusions without further evidence. I agree that the seeds of distrust have sown by the captain himself due to incompetence or panic. However, we cannot resolutely conclude that the US carrier was indeed struck. As for the comments and NASA, I have no clue what you are trying to convey.


You should compare the two organization and configuration of the aircraft on the deck within the two photos before jumping that fast to a conclusion. You and I have been on this forum long enough to be wary of the small details found in photos.
I never claimed the US carrier was struck, I'm just pointing out the fact the US Navy has to defend against what would seem like outrageous claims 20 years ago means the US Navy has already lost (the battle for the hearts and minds) around the world.
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
I never claimed the US carrier was struck, I'm just pointing out the fact the US Navy has to defend against what would seem like outrageous claims 20 years ago means the US Navy has already lost (the battle for the hearts and minds) around the world.
Ah, I see. In that case, I agree. The fact that the US Navy is struggling to defend against these claims is simultaneously borderline pathetic and pitiful.
 

Petrolicious88

Senior Member
Registered Member
I never claimed the US carrier was struck, I'm just pointing out the fact the US Navy has to defend against what would seem like outrageous claims 20 years ago means the US Navy has already lost (the battle for the hearts and minds) around the world.
20 years ago they struck USS Cole. Did a lot more damage than the Houthis. US navy was fine then. What’s different this time? Just how much cred are you giving to the Houthis.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
They really shouldn’t have responded to the accusation. Houthis will keep on trolling and are they going to keep on responding?

It’s pretty shocking behaviour for the captain of a warship in a war zone actually being actively attacked to be wasting any time on social media.

If the ship is hit, I half expect it to be due to the captain ordering the EW to be turn off so he can check his Twitter replies.
 

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
20 years ago they struck USS Cole. Did a lot more damage than the Houthis. US navy was fine then. What’s different this time? Just how much cred are you giving to the Houthis.
Cole was struck while parked inside a dock, in a one-time operation. Eisenhower is active at sea in a hostile war environment. Totally different scenario. The difference is (if the claim is true) warships in active duty are not impenetrable.
 

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
20 years ago they struck USS Cole. Did a lot more damage than the Houthis. US navy was fine then. What’s different this time? Just how much cred are you giving to the Houthis.
Better comparison is probably the 2006 hit of the INS Hanit by Hezbollah, apparently with an Iranian copy of a Chinese missile. But an aircraft carrier is a little more important, isn't it? These ships should be protected by a whole strike group. It should never be possible to hit it
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
It’s pretty shocking behaviour for the captain of a warship in a war zone actually being actively attacked to be wasting any time on social media.

If the ship is hit, I half expect it to be due to the captain ordering the EW to be turn off so he can check his Twitter replies.

They shouldn’t have parked a carrier in the middle of a body of water as narrow as the Red Sea in the first place. The fact that they did so shows their contempt for Houthi abilities.
 
Top