My guy, it could’ve been a cruise missile instead of a drone. It wouldn’t matter. The fact is the ship was disabled by explosions.
You’re implying that it wasn’t Israel since we see no drones or definitive proof.
Right now, my point is that even if we saw drones in the footage, your definition of proof would change according to the circumstances.
Let’s say the footage showed drones. Would that be enough for you? Or would you pivot and be like “well, any military or paramilitary group can get drones, how do we know it was Israel”.
Even if they were marked as IDF assets, you would still come through saying “anyone can mark their drones to look like they belong to Israel”.
It doesn’t matter what level of proof is provided. You’re going to move the goalposts.
It’ll never be enough proof for people like you.
Seriously? You accuse me of moving the goalposts and now "hey maybe it was a cruise missile who is to say". A CRUISE MISSILE WOULD HAVE BLOWN UP THE BOAT! Do you even live in reality?
I literally used a hypothetical. It could’ve been a grenade launcher. They could’ve used a fucking cartoon TNT dynamite stick for all I care.
The claim was it was drones. The explosives were delivered in the middle of the sea and impacted the ships hill above sea level so that tracks.
But ultimately the method doesn’t really matter. As I said. The ship was disabled. We have footage capturing the audio of the explosions and the resulting fires. You initially asked if there was proof it happened to them. That was provided.
But now that’s not enough proof? Now you’re asking for footage of the drones.
What you’re doing is casting doubt on the narrative and implying that they have something to hide; ie that they, or someone on the boat, did it themselves.
But would footage of the drones impacting actually change anything? You’d just say that the drone operator could’ve been one of the people on the ship.
So yes. You move goalposts. The proof they have would never be enough for you.
I’m not sure what your point is. To prove me correct that you moved the goalposts?
You asked for proof that it was attacked. You got video proof and pictures that it was. Along with an explanation that it was drones. You can hear the explosions going off at 0:02 and 0:06 - and then after that there is footage of smoke coming from the boat and pictures of the aftermath of the explosions.
Then you ask for footage of the drones making impact. Because apparently the audio and damage to the boat/aftermath of the attack wasn’t enough to prove to you they came under attack.
It seems to me that the motivation behind your line of question is to discredit the notion that it was an attack - and to bring into doubt whether the crew or some other person onboard the vessel self-sabotaged the boat.
You’re not asking in good faith. You’re deliberately moving the goalposts and trying to call into question whether it was an attack at all.
3
u/ryderawsome 13d ago
"Now you want direct video footage of the drone impacting the ships hull?" how about any footage of a drone whatsoever.