Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that
non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the
Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the
commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the
need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.
Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran
Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three
ships.
The Iranian commander is heard to say, "Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian
navy patrol boat." He then requests the "side numbers" of the U.S. warships. A
voice with a U.S. accent replies, "This is coalition warship 73. I am operating
in international waters."
The dramatic version of the incident reported by U.S. news media throughout
Tuesday and Wednesday suggested that Iranian speedboats, apparently belonging to
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy, had made moves to attack three U.S.
warships entering the Strait and that the U.S. commander had been on the verge
of firing at them when they broke off.
Typical of the network coverage was a story by ABC's Jonathan Karl quoting a
Pentagon official as saying the Iranian boats "were a heartbeat from being blown
up".
Note: Read the rest here.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”
"media portrayal" = "we want to sell sensation".
This is not the first time, of course.
threat to the greatest military power in the world. C'mon...you gotta write a
better story than that if you want people to believe your crap.
better story than that if you want people to believe your crap."
Were only that true, the hell of the situation is that there *are* believers. Lots and lots of beleivers
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake