world

U.S. says Navy ship destroyed Iranian drone in Gulf

36 Comments
By Steve Holland

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Ok, here is the "payback" for shooting down the US drone. Tit for tat, if it's actually true!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

We had to get em back.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It is actually quite brilliant. Shooting down each others drones... that is the kind of warfare we should appreciate.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Surprised no liberals here saying we have to reimburse Iran for the cost of their property.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@blacklabe Surprised no liberals here saying we have to reimburse Iran for the cost of their property.

Only the liberals in your mind. Staying on your theme, I'm surprised no alt right-er, especially those supporting Russia (and so by default its gas cabal partner Iran) has attacked the US for shooting down the drone. (Assuming a drone was shot down by the US. The US military has rarely ever been credible, and under Trump impossible to trust.)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I smell a gulf of Tonkin in the post.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Good.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

If Trump intentionally planned to raise tensions with no endgame then he's an idiot. If Trump had no clue tensions would rise and has no endgame then he's an idiot.

Hrs covered either way.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Shooting down a drone as a response is sure more appropriate than bombing sites inside Iran a bringing on a full blown conflict. Now, if that drone was not actually Iranian as they say, that would be quite interesting.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

How many American lives and millions of our tax dollars will be lost because Trump pulled out of the Iran deal? Trump has admitted he pulled out solely to spite President Obama, not because he had a better ( or any?) alternate plan.

The real problem is...the world does not believe a word that comes out of Trump's mouth. America has NO CREDIBILITY at all with anyone. 

That's the price America pays when a narcissistic pathological liar is President.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Bolton must be rock hard right now.

The drums of war are still beating.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If it comes from the White house consider it Fake News...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The drums of war are still beating.

The drums are beating, but I doubt there will be much more to actual combat than some drones shot down. Which is still bad because of all the risks to innocent lives.

I think it's just Trump and his fellow neo-cons' theater. They know the best way to ramp up military spending even higher is to keep fear alive in the minds of America's most intellectually vulnerable, i.e those who fear the most. Trump's created enemies for them to be afraid of, among them Iranians. And of course many others.

Plus Trump doesn't want to offend Iran's gas cabal partner Russia.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Tit-for-tat is a dangerous game!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. says it shot down a drone, Iran does not admit it. Somebody not telling the truth. It would be nice if the U.S. provides some proof - video footage, debris or something.

@PTownsend

Trump doesn't want to offend Iran's gas cabal partner Russia

So, Trump killed the nuclear deal with Iran, piled severe sanctions on that country, but he "doesn't want to offend" it?  Wow, that was some solid logic. And what is the "gas cabal"?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

One year, six months, two days left of the crazy man in the White House......

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Yeah until the next 4 years start, sure.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

It looks like the "peaceful" Iranians are on a roll in the Strait of Hormuz. They have attacked six vessels with limpet mines, shot down a U.S. drone, hijacked the oil tanker MT Riah, and threatened the USS Boxer with an off-the-shelf drone. Unfortunately for the Iranians, the USS Boxer crew only needed a little electronic jamming to drop the nosey Iranian drone into the water. Meanwhile, the sanctions against Iran continues.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

It looks like the "peaceful" Iranians are on a roll in the Strait of Hormuz. They have attacked six vessels with limpet mines, shot down a U.S. drone, hijacked the oil tanker MT Riah, and threatened the USS Boxer with an off-the-shelf drone.

Just like in the Gulf of Tonkin!

The US has a serious credibility problem here.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@asakazeAnd what is the "gas cabal"?

Using Yandex I found this RT article: https://www.rt.com/business/382623-russia-iran-cooperation-oil/

describing Russia and Iran's gas connections. The article mentions the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), which I see as an an OPEC-like 'cabal', a 'cabal' because they do not function opaquely. Waiting for 'the west is worse'...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No ordinance wasted. The Boxer is equipped with directed energy weapons including microwave and laser beam armaments.

thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29063/marine-anti-drone-buggies-on-uss-boxer-knocked-down-threatening-iranian-drone

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland - Just like in the Gulf of Tonkin!

The US has a serious credibility problem here.

Even the North Vietnamese have admitted that they attacked the USS Maddox, on August 2, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@PTownsend

 a 'cabal' because they do not function opaquely

Do not function opaquely? In other words, they function transparently? Then what's the problem, why cabal? lol

Waiting for 'the west is worse'...

Oh, Western conglomerates are just shining paragons of transparency! Sure, sure.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Proof please

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@asakaze Do not function opaquely?

opaque

/ə(ʊ)ˈpeɪk/

adjective

not able to be seen through; not transparent.

Oh, Western conglomerates are just shining paragons of transparency! Sure, sure.

Good example of 'west is worst'. You forgot 'Can't prove it! Can't prove it!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@PTownsend

not able to be seen through; not transparent

I know the meaning of the word. Check your grammar. "Do not function opaquely" means "function transparently".

 You forgot 'Can't prove it! Can't prove it!

No, I did not forget. May be you can prove it. Show the proof of sinister plans of Iran (Russia, GECF, whoever) about gas and I'll admit that you are right.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Even the North Vietnamese have admitted that they attacked the USS Maddox, on August 2, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The drums are beating, but I doubt there will be much more to actual combat than some drones shot down.

Between Bolton who really, really wants his war, and Trump being... Trump, I wouldn't dare be as confident as you.

It may only take Trump ordering a military action and finding out he enjoys it to start a full on conflict.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Even the North Vietnamese have admitted that they attacked the USS Maddox, on August 2, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin.

The August 2 attack was never in dispute. It’s the August 4 alleged attack that the Capitan could not verify, but Washington/Johnson had already used the alleged incident to green light a major escalation.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

Of course, the New York Times sold that “police action” to the people as well.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The farcical current occupant of the White House continues to follow instructions from the insufferable prime minister on the Middle Eastern client state and follows the same proxy play book that George W (Weapons of Mass Deception) Bush administration did on the mindless war of choice on Iraq.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Of peculiar note, they didn't say they "shot down" the drone

They just say it's "destroyed"

Thus, some speculate that it wasn't brought down by shooting a missile, but rather something like a signal jammer that messed with its circuits, causing it to crash

2 ( +2 / -0 )

 Iran said it had no information about losing a drone.

They have it now, right? Or it could be the Pentagon is lying.

The farcical current occupant of the White House continues to follow instructions from the insufferable prime minister on the Middle Eastern client state 

The Mullahs are not only still alive, they're still in charge, last time I checked.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

According to Iran, all their drones landed safely. They are suggesting that the US might have taken out one of their own.

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2019/07/19/Iran-deputy-FM-US-downed-own-drone-by-mistake-.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the drone had flown to within 1,000 yards of the USS Boxer

Any aircraft that close to any warship without permission needs to be shot down. Doesn't matter if the warship is US, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean. That is just too close.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

America shot down its own drone.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So far Iran is winning the cost war.

Cost to Iran. "using off-the-shelf, commercially available drones"

Drone and missile to shot down USA drone $ 1,000,000 ?

Cost to USA ?

one of the US military's most advanced drones — it costs more than an F-35 stealth fighter

https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-shot-down-one-of-us-militarys-most-advanced-drones-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

US drone shot out of sky by Iran cost $123 million

https://nypost.com/2019/06/20/us-drone-shot-out-of-sky-by-iran-cost-123-million/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites