Pentagon: Iran fires on U.S. drone

[Chiefspants]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...one/?hpt=hp_t3

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

The claim that the drone was in international airspace cannot be confirmed.
It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.
That this was due to “routine maritime surveillance” is also very dubious. Even if it were“routine” that still has no bearing on how it could be perceived as hostile. If it was really routine, then the Pentagon had nothing to hide, and should not have been classified as it had been.
All sorts of angles here. But if it was hovering near our airspace, or just off the coast our govt would have acted more aggressively than Iranian warning shots, that actually missed this "poor unarmed drone." Po' wittle piece of metal.

Oh and the Obama administration witheld this for the public until after the election.

Is this a cut and paste job, or did you write it??

[BucEyedPea]

Change the word "one" to "drone" here:

[Donger]

Ah, I see. A cut and paste job from here. What a shock:

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/08/i...redator-drone/

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Donger

Ah, I see. A cut and paste job from here. What a shock:

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/08/i...redator-drone/

Wow, BEP. The guy openly and pre-emptively mocks you for waiting on a source from Antiwar.com....and you still can't be bothered to re-write what you plagiarize from the exact site?

That's pretty damn weak right there.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Wow, BEP. The guy openly and pre-emptively mocks you for waiting on a source from Antiwar.com....and you still can't be bothered to re-write what you plagiarize from the exact site?

That's pretty damn weak right there.

He already knows where I get that from because I always get it from the same place. It is still facts.
It was not all cut and paste though but excerpted and in parts paraphrased. I just forgot to link which I usually do.
I did say I was reading that.

antiwar.com called out all the lies on Iraq and turned out right.
They did the same on the Balkan intervention.
They specialize in tough investigative reporting on war only.
They even have former CIA as contributers.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

He already knows where I get that from because I always get it from the same place. It still facts.

Are you willing to attempt to defend their "facts" with me?

[BucEyedPea]

Donger would rather plagiarize/cut and paste the govt's claims.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Donger would rather plagiarize/cut and paste the govt's claims.

I take it that you aren't willing to defend any of the article you posted?

[BucEyedPea]

Po'r wittle piece of unarmed metal.
I'm so skeer'd.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Po'r wittle piece of unarmed metal.
I'm so skeer'd.

I know you won't (because you have no idea what you're talking about), but please explain this, particularly the second sentence:

The claim that the drone was in international airspace cannot be confirmed.

It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.

[BucEyedPea]

Poor wandering drone.
Though thou hast surely strayed,
Take heart of grace,
Thy steps retrace,
Poor wand'ring drone!

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

Are you willing to attempt to defend their "facts" with me?

I said, in bold, " I'm reading"....As I have said many times before with you those are called contrary facts. I told you before when there are contrary facts then something isn't right about what we're being told. Being that we're trying to create a reason for another war, were lied to before and my source has reported more accurately than yours I remain suspicious.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

:d

Wow, BEP. The guy openly and pre-emptively mocks you for waiting on a source from Antiwar.com....and you still can't be bothered to re-write what you plagiarize from the exact site?

Here's the facts on what is plagiarism.
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_artic...arism_faq.html

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I said, in bold, " I'm reading"....As I have said many times before with you those are called contrary facts. I told you before when there are contrary facts then something isn't right about what we're being told. Being that we're trying to create a reason for another war, were lied to before and my source has reported more accurately than yours I remain suspicious.

What makes you think that this is a "contrary fact"?

It's doubtful, as it would be difficult for Iran to fire on a small drone from its own territory.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I said, in bold, " I'm reading"....As I have said many times before with you those are called contrary facts. I told you before when there are contrary facts then something isn't right about what we're being told. Being that we're trying to create a reason for another war, were lied to before and my source has reported more accurately than yours I remain suspicious.

I think a link would be sufficient. What you did there would've gotten me kicked out of school.