1st point: The ship is DEFINED as a U.S. Naval Vessel in the article - and is described as "a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet".
2nd point: The ship was attacked in an area the Navy HAD to know was subject to pirate attacks by African Muslims -- since it's been in all the papers. < /sarcasm>
An overwhelming majority of "African Muslim" pirates are black...
3rd point: One would assume our military forces NEEDED the "dry cargo and ammunition" or they wouldn't have shipped it half way around the world..
4th point: The U.S. Navy must have something in their Mission Statement and ROE that requires them to practice "Force Protection", using lethal force if threatened......
Military supply lines - INCLUDING merchant ships on the high seas carrying war material, comes under that mandate.
5th point: I haven't already forgotten that our black poseur of a President - ordered the Navy to stand down when an American Captain was held by pirates a short time ago, until "his folks - the FBI arrived to negotiate"....
Why did this black President feel the FBI needed to be involved in dealing with black pirates on the high seas?
6th point: Since nearly 97% of blacks in America voted for and celebrate the first black President, the media hails him as the black messiah who is the smartest man to ever serve as President (even though NONE of them or us has seen ANY DOCUMENTATION to substantiate that claim) and the President himself never misses an opportunity to call attention to his uniqueness as a black President -- I find it a simple matter of logic to frame criticism of his actions as a black President...
Finally - one can't help but wonder if our current President would behave as he has against Black African Muslim pirates, if he was not himself a black who celebrates his African roots and was born to a Muslim father, adopted by a Muslim father, personally stated his familiarity and admiration for aspects of Islam and some suspect is STILL a Muslim.....
If it's racist to question Obama's history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist -- then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.
“If it’s racist to question Obama’s history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist — then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.”
I’ll take your side on that issue!
I hope not. This site would be out of business.
But it's certainly possible to do these things without mentioning his race.
It may not have been your intent, but you have to consider how these words come across.
I don't think the Navy alters its ROE simply because of the skin color of the president. One can imagine a number of possible black presidents - say, Colin Powell (be he RINO or not), Michael Steele, etc. - which wouldn't seem likely to prompt such questions.
Your final point, which should have been your ONLY point, is relevant, but is NOT what you originally stated and asked. Its relevance is minimal, however, since the policy of using unarmed or lightly armed, civilian crewed but Navy owned ships as ammunition carriers was not Zero's idea.
I asked you a question, BTW: when was the last time, Pre-Zero, that a US Naval Ship was attacked by pirates? That incident (if it exists) will be your precedent for rationally judging the recent attack on USNS L&C and Zero's possible disloyalty.
Your homework, RR, is to research the matter rationally and factually, and report your documented findings to us.
Class dismissed.