Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Cargo ship that's been innocently sitting off the coast of Yemen for years attacked with limpet mine. Witnesses report that its Christmas lights appear distressingly tangled   (nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Yemen, Red Sea, Iran's Foreign Ministry, Benjamin Netanyahu  
•       •       •

3313 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2021 at 2:50 PM (4 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



53 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
4 days ago  
L1mp3t is the name of my new Don Knotts themed cryptonotcurrency.
 
4 days ago  
According to an Iranian spokesman, S. Gull, it was a

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
4 days ago  
1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
4 days ago  
Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.
 
4 days ago  
Could have been SEALs on an SDV.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
4 days ago  
Again??
 
4 days ago  
Another one?
 
4 days ago  
I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell
 
4 days ago  
First the space lasers, now mines....
 
4 days ago  

dothemath: Could have been SEALs on an SDV.

[Fark user image 278x181]


Israel owns it.

Difference is this time it was a de facto military ship of the IRGC at anchor and not a purely civilian vessel.
 
4 days ago  

gameshowhost: L1mp3t is the name of my new Don Knotts themed cryptonotcurrency.


Every year, when that movie aired, I'd go to the neighbors' to watch it on the color tv they had. (I am old.)
 
4 days ago  
"U.S. potentially rejoining Tehran's tattered nuclear deal"

Sweet more fuel and money for them.
 
4 days ago  

Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.


I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.
 
4 days ago  

Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.


It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.
 
4 days ago  

PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.


Israel claimed responsibility already.
 
4 days ago  
images.static-bluray.comView Full Size
Approves
 
4 days ago  

thehobbes: PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.

Israel claimed responsibility already.


Didn't see that in the article.
 
4 days ago  

doomsdayaddams: gameshowhost: L1mp3t is the name of my new Don Knotts themed cryptonotcurrency.

Every year, when that movie aired, I'd go to the neighbors' to watch it on the color tv they had. (I am old.)


dude i'm in that era too

/the best friend's dad had a great setup with by far the biggest tv in the neighborhood... 25" iirc
//encased in an eleven ton wooden cabinet, by god, let me tell you, and they had hbo
///BY GAWD, JAWS IS FINALLY ON THE TEEVEE TONIGHT!

HBO Intro 1983
Youtube GjYDBLnHE1Y
 
4 days ago  

PaceyWhitter: thehobbes: PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.

Israel claimed responsibility already.

Didn't see that in the article.


Different article.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
4 days ago  

justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell


Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"
 
4 days ago  

scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"


Guess I should have read the entire thread first
 
4 days ago  

scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"


Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew. Damaging her means she returns to port for refit. Read somewhere the limpet was above the waterline. The things are designed to punch a hole under to sink.
 
4 days ago  

gilbertfroy: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 330x172]


I'm still not sure if that was a real film or some kind of fever dream I had as a kid.
 
4 days ago  

thehobbes: PaceyWhitter: thehobbes: PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.

Israel claimed responsibility already.

Didn't see that in the article.

Different article.

[Fark user image image 850x827]


It was an anonymous US official who supposedly leaked that info. I'm not buying it until someone in a position to know and who's willing to be named says it.
 
4 days ago  

jjorsett: thehobbes: PaceyWhitter: thehobbes: PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.

Israel claimed responsibility already.

Didn't see that in the article.

Different article.

[Fark user image image 850x827]

It was an anonymous US official who supposedly leaked that info. I'm not buying it until someone in a position to know and who's willing to be named says it.


NYT is signing off on it as credible.
 
4 days ago  

thehobbes: scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"

Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew. Damaging her means she returns to port for refit. Read somewhere the limpet was above the waterline. The things are designed to punch a hole under to sink.


The NYT is saying it was below.
 
4 days ago  
Don't forget your limpets!
 
4 days ago  

BigNumber12: thehobbes: scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"

Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew. Damaging her means she returns to port for refit. Read somewhere the limpet was above the waterline. The things are designed to punch a hole under to sink.

The NYT is saying it was below.


Gotcha. Apparently the one done in Nov 2020 was above and I read it wrong.
 
4 days ago  

gameshowhost: doomsdayaddams: gameshowhost: L1mp3t is the name of my new Don Knotts themed cryptonotcurrency.

Every year, when that movie aired, I'd go to the neighbors' to watch it on the color tv they had. (I am old.)

dude i'm in that era too

/the best friend's dad had a great setup with by far the biggest tv in the neighborhood... 25" iirc
//encased in an eleven ton wooden cabinet, by god, let me tell you, and they had hbo
///BY GAWD, JAWS IS FINALLY ON THE TEEVEE TONIGHT!

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/GjYDBLnH​E1Y?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


I remember watching a "making of" movie about this intro.
 
4 days ago  
As mentioned in the Al Jazeera thread earlier, the Saudis are the prime suspects. They've been claiming the target ship was providing SIGINT and 4C support for the Houthis (Iran claims it is a "logistics base" for "counter-piracy operations"), and the target ship is located close to Saudi military assets.

Israel might have had motive (the Iran-rest of the world nuclear talks have resumed), but aren't the likeliest suspects. An Israeli commando would have had a much more difficult time getting in and out undetected and would be less likely to have botched the job as described in TFA.
 
4 days ago  

dothemath: gameshowhost: doomsdayaddams: gameshowhost: L1mp3t is the name of my new Don Knotts themed cryptonotcurrency.

Every year, when that movie aired, I'd go to the neighbors' to watch it on the color tv they had. (I am old.)

dude i'm in that era too

/the best friend's dad had a great setup with by far the biggest tv in the neighborhood... 25" iirc
//encased in an eleven ton wooden cabinet, by god, let me tell you, and they had hbo
///BY GAWD, JAWS IS FINALLY ON THE TEEVEE TONIGHT!

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/GjYDBLnH​E1Y?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]

I remember watching a "making of" movie about this intro.


i think that showed up in the sidebar on the page
 
4 days ago  
So the mods pulled the thread that was greened first and left this one up?  Yes, this one has a lower thread number but the other link went green 3 hours earlier.  I'm sure we won't get an explanation.
 
4 days ago  

thehobbes: scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"

Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew. Damaging her means she returns to port for refit. Read somewhere the limpet was above the waterline. The things are designed to punch a hole under to sink.


Iranians don't have life vests?
 
4 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
4 days ago  

Snuffybud: So the mods pulled the thread that was greened first and left this one up?  Yes, this one has a lower thread number but the other link went green 3 hours earlier.  I'm sure we won't get an explanation.


The other headline sucked even more.
 
4 days ago  

thehobbes: scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"

Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew.


It's a boat covered in boats. Yo dawg, I'm sure they could have managed to survive.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
4 days ago  

BigNumber12: thehobbes: scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"

Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew.

It's a boat covered in boats. Yo dawg, I'm sure they could have managed to survive.

[Fark user image 422x246]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
4 days ago  
Limpet mines? Might have been these guys:

warfarehistorynetwork.comView Full Size


/Obscure?
 
4 days ago  

BigNumber12: thehobbes: scanman61: justanotherfarkinfarker: I'm guessing they put it on their own ship? Or that mine was tiny as hell

Yeah, if the headline is "attacked" rather than "sunk" I really doubt if it was the Israelis.

They tend to err on the side of "big bada boom"

Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew.

It's a boat covered in boats. Yo dawg, I'm sure they could have managed to survive.

[Fark user image 422x246]


to be fair, the usn went 0-17 against container ships without any of the ships sinking.
 
4 days ago  

thehobbes: Sinking her means deliberately killing IRGC crew.


So that's one in the "plus" column and the negative might be what?
 
4 days ago  

Mock26: Limpet mines? Might have been these guys:

[warfarehistorynetwork.com image 652x482]

/Obscure?


Collapsing kayak? That's the Brits.
 
4 days ago  

Mock26: Limpet mines? Might have been these guys:

[warfarehistorynetwork.com image 652x482]

/Obscure?


SBS
 
4 days ago  
No one's going to acknowledge how badass it is that someone was able to anonymously attach a limpet mine to a ship sitting in the open?

Apolitically, I'm not touching any of that toxic sludge of a topic. Just saying... if that person were on your team. Whatever your team is. It would have deserved more than a high five and a costco cake.
 
4 days ago  

Snuffybud: So the mods pulled the thread that was greened first and left this one up?  Yes, this one has a lower thread number but the other link went green 3 hours earlier.  I'm sure we won't get an explanation.


I'm reliably informed we'll get over it.
 
4 days ago  

PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.


MBS seems determined to set the region on fire.
 
4 days ago  

indy_kid: PaceyWhitter: Chthonic Echoes: Tillmaster: Well, that was the subtlest dog whistle that I've seen in a long time.

I'm not sure it's antisemitic to assume the Israelis might be involved in covert actions damaging Iranian interests.

It could be the Israelis but it is more likely to be the Saudis.  Agree that the speculation is not racist / antisemetic.

MBS seems determined to set the region on fire.


His betters really need to give him the Mansour bin Muqrin treatment, if you know what I mean.
 
4 days ago  
Do people ~still~ actually believe that Iran is like Iraq, and we can just walk in there and/or provoke them w/o suffering more than a handful of casualties?
 
4 days ago  

gameshowhost: Do people ~still~ actually believe that Iran is like Iraq, and we can just walk in there and/or provoke them w/o suffering more than a handful of casualties?


Who is saying that?
 
4 days ago  

BigNumber12: gameshowhost: Do people ~still~ actually believe that Iran is like Iraq, and we can just walk in there and/or provoke them w/o suffering more than a handful of casualties?

Who is saying that?


Unless you have them blocked, there are two above you (that I can see) who are expressing happiness with this notion of poking the Iranians. What's a reasonable alternative explanation? That they actually ~want~ us to get into a hot war that would kill countless young bullet sponges who are overrepresented by PoC and the poors?

wait... don't answer that...
 
3 days ago  

gameshowhost: BigNumber12: gameshowhost: Do people ~still~ actually believe that Iran is like Iraq, and we can just walk in there and/or provoke them w/o suffering more than a handful of casualties?

Who is saying that?

Unless you have them blocked, there are two above you (that I can see) who are expressing happiness with this notion of poking the Iranians. What's a reasonable alternative explanation? That they actually ~want~ us to get into a hot war that would kill countless young bullet sponges who are overrepresented by PoC and the poors?

wait... don't answer that...


I don't see anything even remotely close to advocating for the U.S. to "walk in there," i.e., an invasion.

Iran has been attacking foreign targets throughout the region. But you appear to be asserting that any foreign reactions to that, by states that have themselves been attacked, are somehow wildly reckless, and would lead to a hot war and "countless" fatalities. Essentially, you're advocating for immunity for Iran's actions, that it should be able to do as it pleases without consequence. I reject that assertion - tit for tat, and wrecking each others' gear, happens all the time without spiraling out of control. And pushback is more likely to promote equilibrium, not destroy it.

And your "PoC and the poors" is silly. Ours is an all-volunteer military. Our deployed soldiers are there because they chose to be there.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.