What 'admissions' are those? That we lost a drone? So what? Look at the video.
So in the same sentence, you have jumped from questioning the Secretary of State of United States, to questioning whether a 'Drone' was lost, to finally
accepting the reality by saying 'So what? Look at the video.' I don't think you see a problem with whatever you are referring to as
critical analysis of the situation. Surely when the Secretary of State says, "We submitted a
formal request for the return of our
lost equipment." She is not formally requesting Iran to return a
screwdriver. That's the relevance theory for you, its major part of critical analysis.
See if you can mentally isolate it from all the commentators for now.
That includes you. You see how generalization works?
Based upon that video alone, what make you think there are any credible evidences to say that what is in the video is indeed the one we lost?
So here you are asking not if a drone was lost but 'which' type of drone was lost. That's completely opposite from your previous position where you were questioning whether a drone was lost. Since you embraced
reality here, let me introduce you to the concept of
informed opinion for which you don't need
direct evidence, you need credible circumstantial evidence, which there is plenty. To begin with, RQ-170 is called '
Beast of Kandahar', not Tokyo, and Kandahar is barely 250 miles away from Iranian borders. We know RQ-170 matches the current US-Iranian atmosphere as it is designed for intelligence gathering and does not carry any weapons. We also know that the drone Iranians showcased is of the right
shape for RQ-170. As is obvious from this 2009 picture.
This is overwhelming evidence that RQ-170 is indeed in
possession of Iran and I am not even mentioning all political hula-hoops American media is making which further strengthens this argument.
Above all and the most important question you never
ask or
answer is what is your argument
against RQ-170? That is where your
"analysis" turns into
bad worded-propaganda.
Do you believe that every aircraft crash have the same mode?
So now you are asking for an
opinion here not an
analysis. Hence anything Abu Zolfiqar says is correct.
If not, then what if Iran have the drone but it is in pieces?
So now you have accepted that Iran is indeed possession of a
drone and the question here is whether its in pieces or not. Well that really doesn't matter because Iran is possession of RQ-170 and they are reverse-engineering it as we speak, whether its in pieces or not.
Then how do you reconcile that possibility with the video?
Ahh so now you want to analyze the video under the strict thought that the drone is broken into piece? Again, where is your evidence for that? Do you have any pictures of it?
Absent a physical inspection that is common knowledge to all mishap investigators, even a layman must have doubts as to whether the thing in the video is the true drone or not.
But a layman
shouldn't because when
Secretary of State is making a
formal request to Iran, which US has no diplomatic relations with, to give back its
lost equipment, we can be sure she is not asking for a screwdriver. Because its
too important a thing she wants back to make a
formal request to an adversary.
Truth is, Obama Administration made a
blunder. Plain and simple. They hoped for Iran to respond
positively to reduce tensions and perhaps make a gesture of '
improving ties' with United States. That was a miscalculation.
This is critical thinking that you do not need a US President to compel you to perform.
I didn't see any critical thinking from your side, gambit. I only see conformation bias.
After all, since they cannot see and hear Osama after a while...
