"Diagne, 53, a Senegalese immigrant, drove to a bar near the University of Texas-Austin campus wearing a “Property of Allah” sweatshirt with a Koran in his vehicle and an AR-pattern rifle in his hands. He started shooting. Austin Police engaged him in under a minute. He still managed to kill two people and wound more before officers put him down."

Note: Correlation does not prove causation.

[url=https://www.borderreport.com/news/gunman-in-austin-mass-shooting-became-citizen-in-2013-had-address-in-pflugerville-in-2017/#:%7E:text=It%20was%20unclear,damage%20in%202022]https://www.borderreport.com/n...r,damage%20in%202022.

It was unclear what led him to open fire outside Buford’s Bar early Sunday. The FBI is investigating possible ties to terrorism.

Below is what we know about the last 26 years of the shooter’s life:

DHS confirmed Diagne came to the country from Senegal in March 13, 2000, on a B-2 tourist visa.
Six years later, in June 2006, he became a lawful permanent resident and received an IR-6 visa, DHS said. The visa was based on Diagne becoming married to a U.S. citizen. The two divorced in 2008.
Diagne was naturalized as a U.S. citizen on April 5, 2013, less than six months after marrying his second wife.
In 2016, he was working as a cab and rideshare driver living in the Bronx, New York.
KXAN learned that Diagne was issued a drivers license with an address on Kickapoo Cavern Drive in Pflugerville in 2017.
In 2022, his second divorce was finalized, and he remarried a third woman months later in Travis County.
Diagne does not have a known criminal history. However, DHS said he was arrested in Texas in relation to a collision with vehicle damage in 2022.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

Farsi-language channels are reporting a growing trend of regular Iranian army ("Artesh") units flatly refusing to aid the IRGC or IRGC "auxiliaries" and police. "Sorry, we're busy watching the border, like the Constitution demands." "Sorry, our fuel reserves are contaminated." "Sorry, emergency tank maintenance."

In other words: "Sorry, guys. We're not the ones with targets on our backs. But hey, good luck defending the Revolution. Say 'howdy' to Ali when you see him, a'ight? We're gonna get back to... Army stuff."

Very nice....

Asking for a little help here.
Like many of you with somewhat liberal family, my son is arguing this post is proof our methods are dishonorable . Ryan Grim x Story is on sinking the Cruiser in Indian Ocean.

Not on da'Twitter. Anyone else know this reporter, or if the story shows what I expect are flaws?

This ain't WW2. I seriously doubt ANY modern nation is going to risk one of their top-tier weapons platform and crew by surfacing to check for survivors.

I've seen similar "articles" on Facebook. My favorite part is the claim that the Iranian ship was unarmed as "they were at an exercise, and you don't need ammo at an exercise."

quote:

Originally posted by scratchy:
About a F/A-18 scoring the only kills on the F-15. Ironic.

Interesting side note, an A-10 from the 107th FS, Michigan ANG sports a cow kill. I served with that wing from 1978 - 1984.

?
Did you know Lt. Col. Aardema?

A sub Captain is not obligated to endanger his boat or crew.

Call the man. Let someone come get them.

Slip away...

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:
Asking for a little help here.
Like many of you with somewhat liberal family, my son is arguing this post is proof our methods are dishonorable . Ryan Grim x Story is on sinking the Cruiser in Indian Ocean.

Not on da'Twitter. Anyone else know this reporter, or if the story shows what I expect are flaws?

I don't know what you are asking specifically, but suggest your son do a little research on Nazi Germany. Their rise to power and how their hatred of a certain group of human beings led them to massacre millions of innocent men, women, children and babies. Then ask him if he see's any similarities to those in power in Iran. And if good men do nothing but hide behind their computers this could easily happen again. Maybe, just maybe he might get it. Maybe.

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:
Asking for a little help here.
Like many of you with somewhat liberal family, my son is arguing this post is proof our methods are dishonorable . Ryan Grim x Story is on sinking the Cruiser in Indian Ocean.

Not on da'Twitter. Anyone else know this reporter, or if the story shows what I expect are flaws?

I'd suggest giving this blog post a read; its focus is on Navy matters, usually from a more strategic view but, its Naval focused and should provide you enough support to refute the position your son is taking up with you.

Talk to any submariner and I would wager all would say this was quite textbook and legit, the entire purpose of a submarine is to strike at the time of their choosing, just that alone strikes fear in ship's crews. The fact that this took place a distance away from the Persian Gulf was the point, we will hunt down all Iranian assets, particularly state owned and directed assets that can strike back; this was a message. There was no way an Iranian warship was going to be allowed to sail, behind our battle group armed with anti-ship missiles while combat operations are being conducted. Which brings up the question, why was this ship and its replenishment escort (IRIS Bushehr) out on a military parade trip while the tension in/around the Gulf was ratcheting up? Clearly some disfunction and poor decision making amongst Iranian leadership. The Iranian ship captain could've easily went to the Sri Lankans and asked for shelter or an anchorage to save his crew, 'we're siting this one out. If I sail out and head home, I'm going right into the teeth of the American task force.'

As for picking up survivors...a submarine isn't going to stop and surface to do such, doing so presents the boat in an extremely vulnerable position not to mention pulling a person from the water to a modern submarine is quite difficult to do...again, boat is in vulnerable position and no captain is going to expose themselves to such. Its possible the USN notified the Sri Lankan Coast Guard the coordinates, there was a P-8 flying providing ISR support, we don't know.

I'll quote one of the posters that provides a very succinct perspective:

quote:

1) The "Dana" sinking was a perfectly legitimate action in warfare. She was a warship, a large surface combatant (yes, I know that you probably don't consider 1500-ton frigate as "large", but she was ocean-capable and armed to the teeth neverless). She was absolutely legitimate target in any conflict. You don't just leave a missile-armed warship behind your back; it could end disastrously.

2) The "Dana" crew is worthy of respect. They knew perfectly well that they are sailing against vastly superior opposing force, that would most likely destroy it. They have a lot of opportunities to go to neutral port and intern their ship. But they decided not to. Their duty as Iranian sailors called; no matter how they like/dislike Iranian regime, their homeland was at war. Their homeland was attacked. They acted as they supposed to

3) The US submarine attack was as close to honest battle as submarine action could be. They closed to periscope range; it means no more than 10 km. If "Dana" noticed them, the submarine itself might become the target; "Dana" carried anti-submarine torpedo tubes and helicopters (no data about her sonar rig, but apparently she have at least hull-mounted one).
....
Warships are legitimate targets in any conflict. Submarine attack on warship is perfectly legitimate and require no further justification beoynd existence of the hostilities between nations.

During the early stages of WW2, German Uboats were picking up survivors at times. Until one day the RAF strafed a Uboat with survivors on it. Donitz stopped the practice, so the Uboats wouldn't get sunk.
The Navy knows this. The wont risk a sub for survivors.

Nice to see some stories about over achievers in the United States Navy.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

As for picking up survivors...a submarine isn't going to stop and surface to do such, doing so presents the boat in an extremely vulnerable position not to mention pulling a person from the water to a modern submarine is quite difficult to do...again, boat is in vulnerable position and no captain is going to expose themselves to such. Its possible the USN notified the Sri Lankan Coast Guard the coordinates, there was a P-8 flying providing ISR support, we don't know.

Even when the USS Greeneville accidentally sank that Japanese school boat in the 1990s, they did NOT attempt to pull survivors from the water. They explained then that it's dangerous to attempt such a task on the open ocean from a submarine deck, and they likely would have caused more harm than good. These subs are designed to go fast and as silent as possible underwater; therefore, they are LOUSY surface craft.

And, added to all that, a sub's only real defense is to remain hidden.

There is no way in heck that the sub was going to surface.


Of course, the ignorant and treasonous 'press' (most of them in the msm, nowadays) will simply ignore the last 60 years of precedence, because 'Orange Man Bad.' They have to recall the Greeneville (the senior folks would, at least). Of course, you CANNOT expect impartiality from ANY US media outlet nowadays (I'm still not happy with Fox News with how they covered the stolen 2020 election and the January Six Reichstag Fire 'Capitol incident.'

Remember, this is the SAME press that insists:

- That the Iranian frigate was 'unarmed,' when that sucker was armed to the teeth.
- That this was not a legal target because it was in 'international waters.'
- That allied forces hit the Iranian girls' school, when it was the Iranian missile that landed short
- That US Marines opened fire on 'peaceful protestors' in Pakistan, when it was an attacking mob
- That a US Senator 'broke a veteran's arm' simply because he was 'protesting,' when it was dislocated while the idiot was ILLEGALLY disrupting a meeting and was being (legally) forcefully removed.
- That President Trump is Israel's puppet, when that idea is simply laughable.

I could go on, but you get the point. . .

Plucking people out of the water onto a submarine deck isn't nearly as easy as it is in the movies and would endanger as many lives as might be saved.

At various times going back to World War I submarine warfare has been criticized as somehow being dishonorable—mostly by people whose countries didn’t have effective submarines. As I recall, there were demands that submarine attacks be conducted only in certain defined zones*, that the submarine should surface and give warning before an attack, and that they were obligated to try to rescue survivors. None of those things makes sense—war† and all that, M’kay? Those things were certainly not observed by any of the US submarines that sank an estimated 1300 Japanese ships during WW II, and which was amazingly effective in degrading Japan’s war-fighting capability.

* Something I saw mentioned in a recent YouTube video by someone who evidently fell to Earth from 1916 or so.

† “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.” — John Stuart Mill

RE: Ryan Grim x Story is on sinking the Cruiser in Indian Ocean.

Thanks for the replies. I first chose not to bias the replies, but I'll be more specific. The issue which I believed incorrect was the joint exercise mentions we invited them, to lure them out, then cancelled the exercise to ambush them. That is the nuance I wish to disprove, as I cannot believe we'd even invite joint naval exercise with the Iranian navy. If that part isn't true then the narrative is wrong and moral outrage is shit.

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:
Asking for a little help here.
Like many of you with somewhat liberal family, my son is arguing this post is proof our methods are dishonorable .

My response would be that war isn't nice, and the Islamists running Iran have never operated with honor for the last half century in their attacks against us. Honor in warfare, as we might imagine the gentlemanly rules of the past, was dead a hundred years ago, and was really just a small blip for a short time in Europe. 99.99% of warfare has been decidedly ungentlemanly.

Would your son give up his life or his son's life in trade for a dedicated enemy's life? The person who would kill his whole family given half a chance?

I certainly have no sympathy for any member of the iranian military.

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:
The issue which I believed incorrect was the joint exercise mentions we invited them, to lure them out, then cancelled the exercise to ambush them.

The 'exercise' was hosted by the Indian Navy. This is the press-release for the affair.
USS Pinckney was scheduled to participate but, was reassigned to the Lincoln CSG for festivities just outside the Persian Gulf (Gonzo Station).
Digging deeper into the list of attendees a Russian frigate was also participating, ask your son if our submarine should've torpedo'd it as well, even though our countries aren't direct combatants in Ukraine.