Womp womp
“u.s doesn’t need that stranded tanker anyways…”
Iran: “Wait… piracy is cool now? ok”
AND they didn’t execute the crew without process.
Pirates of the Caribbean (3) vs The World Team (2), LESSSS GO, SEIZE MORE OF THE US SHIT, MAKE THEM PAY, WE ARE GETTING THE WORLD CUP, THE THIRD WORLD WILL REVOLT
Lols!
I wonder whether Venezuela could do similar or if their military is not as developed.
That would be just what usa wants. usa is trying to provoke Venezuela into giving them casus belli. Doing nothing might make usa think they are weak but its better than giving usa an excuse.
Running out the clock?
smh trump can’t even do 9/11 or the gulf of tonkin or the uss maine
You just need am helicopter and a couple of armed guys to take over an oil ship
The backup if needed after the event would be crucial.
B-b-b-but that’s piracy! They can’t do that!
Copium. This is Iran trying to stop diesel smuggling out of Iran, not solidarity with Venezuela or anti-imperialist action. It’s not even close to America’s medicine.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If these are indeed US-linked tankers and they are involved in “smuggling diesel out of Iran”, would that not be a win for anti-imperialism for Iran to be guarding against the US violating its sovereign rules?
you are the only person saying “solidarity.” Don’t read things that aren’t written.
The post is saying that as usa does illegal piracy Iran has started seizing ships as well. The idiom “giving their own medicine” means, harming someone the same way they harm others.
Any action Iran takes that harms america or american business is by its very nature Anti-imperialist because usa is an empire and Iran is resisting.
No, “giving a taste of one’s own medicine” is commonly understood to have a connotation of vengeance or justice. Your definition is incorrect, and does not match how the phrase is used.
Don’t read things that aren’t written.
This is how all human communication works. It is a fundamental aspect of using words. You don’t understand how any of this works.
The original comment is right.
That would imply that usa never stole iran’s ships.
It does not imply that at all, because that’s not what the tweet or comment here implied.
Your comment implies it, not the other one
This is how all human communication works.
No that is how miscommunication works. If you project meaning that isn’t there into other peoples words you are deluding yourself. You can’t read peoples minds. Whatever you think people might mean is just your own ideas.
If you really think what is written means whatever you want it to, you don’t deserve to have the word communism in your username. That is the mindset that breeds revisionism like “marx didn’t mean violent revolution he meant a gradual revolution in thinking and morality.”
I can see y’all are a pretty dogmatic bunch, so I’ll keep it brief.
The US is (illegally) seizing tankers carrying Venezuelan oil to market, off the coast of Venezuela. Post title “taste of their own medicine”, tweet mentions “US-linked” (whatever that means is doing a lot of heavy lifting) tankers. Put them together and it means that Iran is seizing American (linked?) oil tankers (wtf??) off the coast of Iran, to… steal back the oil… that they sold to… someone using US-linked oil tankers?
<looks_inside>It’s Iranians smuggling cheap diesel out of Iran to sell in foreign currency and convert back to rial (my guess) for big profits. Or just buy stuff in foreign currency, who knows. Anyway, their navy caught them. This is really not any kind of liberation success story, just internal policing in Iran.
I get it though and I’m with you, I’d love to see some justice for, not even historical, but even for just the international law violations the US is committing today, that would be enough. But this ain’t it buddy.
It would help if you have a source. Though in fairness, the OP’s only source posted is a tweet, so that isn’t great as a source either. Not sure what you mean by dogmatic though.
It absolutely is how all communication works. People do not ever speak perfectly literally, and you always must imply some meanings in people’s words. If you think otherwise, it’s because you’ve never thought about it.
This is a very basic linguistic concept.
For someone going on about having to understand other peoples words you sure dont read mine.
If you project meaning that isn’t there into other peoples words.
There is a difference between deciphering what a person means based on the words they used and just deciding they mean something more than they have said.
