←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
weatherlight ◴[] No.34713901[source]
Not a few hours later, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. 17 hours to find the second floating sonar device. 17 hours to get caught with your pants down.

I'm saying this as former US military here. the Idea that in the middle of a OPORD, of any kind, POTUS would come in last minute and change a detail, like an explosive on a timer (fairly simple,) to what is effectively some new technology no one has ever heard of, that allows for remote sonar detonations is Tom Clancy stuff.

In the United States Military, there's this thing called the Chain of Command.

This exercise was under the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, which is under the United States European Command & United States Africa Command.

The "work" that being described here would have been under SOCOM (United States Special Operations Command), which is the only command that could do this kind of work, they are the only ones that even have the assets to do this kind of work and theres absolutely no mention of that in this piece.

It's complete conjecture and should absolutely be treated as such until theres hard evidence.

replies(4): >>34714790 #>>34715784 #>>34716322 #>>34717045 #
oezi ◴[] No.34714790[source]
Since it was established that the destruction was caused by explosives, what is your argument?

The US is too competent to do such a bad job (17 hours apart and only 3 of 4 pipes destroyed)?

Does this imply we have a rogue actor or insufficiently equipped one to blame? Who?

replies(5): >>34715269 #>>34715360 #>>34715386 #>>34716701 #>>34721815 #
1. foxyv ◴[] No.34715386[source]
I think his argument is that the explanation offered by the author is implausible. When someone comes forward with such claims, the main means of determining it's veracity is to verify the details provided. Typically fabrications will contain small inconsistencies that don't match facts known only to investigators, verified witnesses, or experts in the subject matter.

I think their implication is that none of us really know what happened, much less the author of this article.