It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Flies drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier!!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   


Iranian media reported Friday that Iran recently flew a military drone over a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, and released a video that they said showed the provocative action underway.

The video shows a ship covered in fighter jets steaming through the blue seas. Cmdr. William Marks, a U.S. Navy spokesman, said in an statement that he could not confirm the authenticity of the video, but he added that an Iranian drone was spotted flying around the French carrier Charles de Gaulle and the American carrier USS Harry S. Truman on Jan. 12 in the Persian Gulf. The drone was unarmed and determined not to be a threat, but Marks said the incident is still considered “abnormal and unprofessional.”



Iran Flies drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier!!

With all the protection around the Fleet, they couldn't detect a drone coolly photographing the aircraft carriers including USS Harry S. Truman with impunity? A chink in the armor? Nope! It instead looks like a huge hole in the protective shield of the multi billion dollar much touted Aegis systems.

Here's the video taken by the drone.....



No prizes for guessing who got a lot of egg on their faces and who had the last laugh!!




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: OrionHunterX

I really feel sorry for Iran... it is their childish antics such as this that makes them appear no wiser than N Korea!



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: OrionHunterX

They didn't do anything illegal and the US was not conducting any exercises that required secured airspace. International waters / airspace = freedom of navigation.

To answer your question no one has egg on their face.
edit on 30-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: OrionHunterX

Surveilance aircraft observes a floating airstrip that is not attempting to hide....

Does the persian gulf have egg on it's face? There shouldn't be an airstrip in the ocean but there is...



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OrionHunterX
You did read what you posted , yes ?



The drone was unarmed and determined not to be a threat,





posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I'm sure the US did all types of interesting systems tests while that thing was flying around. They just didn't pull any triggers.

Judging by the quality of the videos, and the apparent atmospheric distortion, the drone had to have been several miles away, and was just zooming in with the camera. If it was too close for comfort, I am sure it would have been grounded.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: OrionHunterX

I really feel sorry for Iran... it is their childish antics such as this that makes them appear no wiser than N Korea!



So the weak little kid throwing a punch at the bully is bad these days you say?

Remember that 1 time when the US went after the leader of Libya because he was a terrorist.. I do.. But I also remember that same time he was trying to bring the Dinar in backed by gold which would kill the what?? ya me to.. Come to think of it...... The dictator of Iraq was in that same boat..

So anything such as the statement you bring to the table is invalid.. Show proof Iran is trying to kill people.. Or do you think the Syrian Leader is bad also... I guessing he isn't..

Also the very very interesting yet telling fact of all this.. Why tf are we over there in the 1st place... probably doesn't have to do with Oil, Central Banks, opium, Lithium and the likes eh? That would totally be conspiracy crap right there wouldn't it.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

Normally I would say Iran needs to stand down but for the moment they have not stood up. Flying an unarmed drone in international airspace is not a news story except to the Iranian government and only for its propaganda value.

Why are we there in the region?

Why did Iran and Russia deploy troops to Syria?

We have as much of a right to work with our allies in the region, just as Iran and Russia.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

#2.) Syria diplomatically invited Russia - I know, a concept united states doesn't understand. . .

#3.) NO YOU DON'T - especially if YOUR COUTRY WASN'T INVITED. . .


*** Do you understand that - or are you under the 'Exceptionalism' doctrine?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SurrenderingIsBack

Way to cherry pick a statement. We have Arab allies and have just as much right to be present for our allies in the region.. Secondly Syria approved the US air action in Syria but I guess you ignore that because you like to America bash, regardless of how wrong you are.

Syria: US begins air strikes on Islamic State targets

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said he supports any international efforts to combat "terrorism" in Syria, state media reports.


* - FM: Syria ‘Satisfied’ With US on ISIS Airstrikes
* - Syria Says U.S.-Led Air Strikes Against IS Militants 'OK'


Who is causing issues? Well Russia and Iran - go figure.

Russia and Iran have both said U.S.-led strikes violate international law and should only be carried out with a UN mandate or a request from Syria’s government.


To bad Syria is ok and welcomes the US to fight against ISIS.


Care to revise your statement / position or are you going go down swinging at something thats not there?


edit on 31-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not standing down homie.

You should re-read your statement to see your fallacies. . . And hence the reply.



International law forbids force by one state against another, subject to only three exceptions. But is there a new rule developing that allows states to deal with powerful non-state groups like Islamic State?

If you would like to dig in - all of ATS will see that your position has been muddied (as usual by politics) as to what "consent" means. And what it means to united states allies.

BTW - Iran flew drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier - LMAO!!!!!!






posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
BTW - Iran flew drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier - LMAO!!!!!!


Can you please provide evidence for your claim? Because all the images and videos I see shows the drone miles away, and not even near the aircraft carrier. Definitely not above it either.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
I'm not standing down homie.

You haven't stood up.

You should re-read your statement to see your fallacies. . . And hence the reply.


originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
International law forbids force by one state against another, subject to only three exceptions. But is there a new rule developing that allows states to deal with powerful non-state groups like Islamic State?

So close yes missed the mark by a mile. A UN mandate / authorization is not needed when country in question, Syria, approves US airstrikes against ISIS targets. Apparently Russia / Iran failed to get consent from Syria before speaking for Syria.

ironic.



originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
If you would like to dig in - all of ATS will see that your position has been muddied (as usual by politics) as to what "consent" means. And what it means to united states allies.

Consent - Syria has consented for the US to operate in Syrian airspace to attack ISIS.



originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
BTW - Iran flew drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier - LMAO!!!!!!

Your response here tells me you have no clue that the carrier was in international waters and the unarmed drone was in international airspace. There would be no reason to down their drone, just as there would be no need to fire on Russian aircraft buzzing US vessels / aircraft in international waters / airspace...


Keep swinging like that and your gonna give someone a cold.
edit on 31-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrionHunterX
No prizes for guessing who got a lot of egg on their faces and who had the last laugh!!

That would be you. They did detect it and determined it was not a threat according to your own post. They had no cause to shoot it down, so they did not. Don't let your hatred make you a fool.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Appears you need context.


Ever since Russia w/ the help of Iran - - pulled back the curtain on this Sh!t Circus Side-Show in Syria. . . Revealed the REAL TERRORIST SPONSORS!

Obama orders U.S. airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State

President Obama: Day 1 of I-L-L-E-G-A-L campaign:Sept 11th 2014 ::


On Day Two of 'Illegal' US-Led Bombing of Syria, Obama Asks for Help Fighting 'Network of Death'

Breaking International Law in Syria. US-NATO’s “Humanitarian Air Strikes”

UNSCR 2249: “compliance with international law, in particular with the UN Charter.”  - Nope, doesn’t apply - - Try Again!

Article 51 of the UN Charter: Nope, refers to attacks between territorial states, not with non-state actors like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Syria, after all, did not attack France or Iraq – or Turkey, Australia, Jordan or Saudi Arabia or United States.

The unwilling and unable theory: Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other foreign groups who are also in Syria legally, at the invitation of the Syrian state.

Article 2 of the UN Charter states: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
It’s hard to see how Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has not been systematically violated throughout the nearly five years of this conflict, by the very states that make up the US-led coalition. The US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and other nations have poured weapons, funds, troops and assistance into undermining a UN member state at every turn.



“Control of surface territory doesn’t count. The government of Kuwait when its entire territory was occupied by Iraq – and it was in exile – was still the legitimate government of Kuwait. The Syrian government could have 10 percent of its surface left – the decision of the UN Security Council is all that matters from the perspective of international law, even if other governments recognize a new Syrian government.”




UNSC Resolution 2249 : Countdown to more illegal airstrikes? If there was any lingering doubt about the illegality of coalition activities in Syria, the Syrian government put these to rest in September, in two letters to the UNSC that denounced foreign airstrikes as unlawful:



“ If any State invokes the excuse of counter-terrorism in order to be present on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian Government whether on the country’s land or in its airspace or territorial waters, its action shall be considered a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”
“ The resolution is worded so as to suggest there is Security Council support for the use of force against IS. However, though the resolution, and the unanimity with which it was adopted, might confer a degree of legitimacy on actions against IS, the resolution does not actually authorize any actions against IS, nor does it provide a legal basis for the use of force against IS either in Syria or in Iraq.”


Sound familiar?




But after seven weeks of Russian airstrikes coordinated with extensive ground troops (which the coalition lacks), none of these scenarios may even be warranted. ISIS and other extremist groups have lost ground in recent weeks, and if this trend continues, coalition states should fall back and focus on other key ISIS-busting activities referenced in UNSCR 2249 – squeezing terror financing, locking down key borders, sharing intelligence…”all necessary measures” to destroy this group.





Closing In: Russia, Iran, Assad "Encircle" Syria's Largest City As Peace Talks Collapse In Geneva


UN Security Council passed resolution 2170: Acting under Chapter VII, it urged all states to protect the civilian population and to cooperate in bringing Isil to justice. However, the key phrase, to use “all necessary means”, which in UN-speak is code for use of force, is missing.

Seeding Propaganda:


“As one UN official told me in private: “Control of surface territory doesn’t count. The government of Kuwait when its entire territory was occupied by Iraq – and it was in exile – was still the legitimate government of Kuwait. The Syrian government could have 10 percent of its surface left – the decision of the UN Security Council is all that matters from the perspective of international law, even if other governments recognize a new Syrian government.”





Are the US-led air strikes in Syria legal - and what does it mean if they are not?



“ Usually self-defence applies when a state has been attacked, and must use force to repel the attacker or prevent further attacks. Thus, the United States clearly exercised a legal right of self-defence when it used force against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan following 9/11. However, Islamic State has not attacked the United States. “


In the name of domestic security: Not for the first time, the United States has acted illegally in using force in response to overriding humanitarian necessity. It did so in March 1999, when along with its Nato allies it launched an extended bombing campaign to stop atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. In this case also, the United States could not claim it was acting in self-defence. Nor was military action authorised by the UN Security Council. Whilst there was just cause, humanitarian necessity is not recognised in international law as constituting a legal ground for use of force. Thus, among the Nato allies, only Belgian claimed a legal right to use force for humanitarian reasons.









In other words:


Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem:
Officially the US hasn’t coordinated with Syria at all on the strikes:

Syria's foreign minister warns U.S. not to conduct unilateral airstrikes against ISIS militants

Syrian Foreign Minister: The US Said 'We Are Not After The Syrian Army' Before Airstrikes



“ Speaking earlier at the U.N. General Assembly, the Syrian foreign minister denounced what he called the United States' "dual policy" of striking at some militants in Syria while providing money, weapons and training to others, calling it a recipe for more violence and terrorism.”







edit on 6-2-2016 by SurrenderingIsBack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
You ready for the HUMILIATING PART???


SECRETARY OF STATE SAYS U.S. WILL HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH ASSAD


Just wait - - Time ALWAYS presents openings:
Kerry says US willing to negotiate with Syria's Assad

SO, since 2014 - - United States has been waging an I-L-L-E-G-A-L campaign in Syria. . .

If united states was so welcome - - then what happened to their airstrikes within Syria?? Why all of the sudden decline in airstrikes?? LoL - you didn't think this wouldn't come back to haunt you?

As of today, united states hasn't put forth LEGAL documentation to justify their campaign in Syria. . .

I expect this next from you Xcatheter:



My point stands STRONG:

edit on 6-2-2016 by SurrenderingIsBack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OrionHunterX

Who is to say the didn't detect the drone? The article leaves much wanting regarding that and rightly so. The Navy dispatched a helicopter, which would suggest it was detected before it was over the carrier itself.

Nothing really too big here except I wish we would release our information whenever such rogue nations pushed their propaganda.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy1

U can't be serious?



whenever such rogue nations pushed their propaganda.


Rogue Nations? Who's half way across the globe in other countries backyard - - trying to pick a fight?

Wake me up when Iran is off the coast of united states flying drones over their aircraft carriers - - lol.

Silly newbies.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SurrenderingIsBack

We have permission from Syria, as I showed.

I am not sure why you are ignoring that fact. No UN mandate is needed when the Syrian government allows it. If you continue to have problems accepting that fact then you should take it up with Syrian government.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join