正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

“Hybrid Attack”: Denmark’s Skies Breached by Drones 🚨LIVE press conference 🚨 Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen: “The drone activity looks systematic. It bears the mark of a professional actor. This is a hybrid attack.” Adds there is no evidence of Russian involvement at this stage Chief of Defence Michael...

48,330 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

BAPCO Energies confirmed on April 5 that a storage tank at its Sitra facility in Bahrain caught fire “as a result of a hostile Iranian drone attack.” The fire was extinguished. No injuries. Damage under assessment. That is the official statement, repeated verbatim across Bahrain News Agency, Gulf News, Al Arabiya, and Xinhua. It is clean, attributable, and consistent with the pattern of Iranian drone and missile strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure that has continued daily since February 28. Then the videos appeared. Footage circulating on social media, shared by Drop Site News and multiple Arabic-language accounts, appears to show two sequential impacts at the facility: one from the incoming drone, and a second moments later from what the accounts describe as a Patriot interceptor missile that failed to intercept the drone and instead struck the oil storage tanks directly. The videos have not been independently verified. The trajectory analysis has not been forensically confirmed. BAPCO’s statement does not mention air defence involvement. The Bahrain Defence Force reported 13 successful drone interceptions in the preceding 24 hours and made no acknowledgement of a misfire. This has happened before. On March 9, an explosion near BAPCO in Sitra injured dozens and was attributed to an Iranian drone. Reuters and the Middlebury Institute subsequently concluded with moderate-to-high confidence that a US-operated Patriot interceptor caused the blast. Drone fragments were absent at the impact site. The damage pattern matched a Patriot warhead detonating at low altitude after losing its target. Bahrain later acknowledged Patriot involvement without formally correcting the original attribution. The March 9 precedent is what makes the April 5 videos significant. Not because they prove the interceptor hit the tank. They do not prove that. But because they introduce a documented pattern: in saturated airspace where dozens of Iranian drones arrive simultaneously, Patriot systems operating at the edge of their engagement envelope against small, slow, low-altitude targets can produce outcomes where the defence causes the damage it was deployed to prevent. The drone is the threat. The interceptor is the response. And the oil tank does not distinguish between the two when the impact arrives. BAPCO operates a 405,000 barrel per day refinery at Sitra. It was struck by confirmed Iranian missiles on March 5, triggering force majeure. It was struck by what was later assessed as friendly fire on March 9, injuring residents. It was struck again on April 5 by what officials call a drone and what videos suggest may have also involved an interceptor. Three incidents in five weeks at the same facility. No force majeure was declared for April 5. The fire was contained rapidly. But the question the videos raise is not about this fire. It is about what happens when Patriot systems engage small, slow, low-altitude drones in saturated airspace directly above the infrastructure they are positioned to protect. Iran does not need to penetrate the shield. It needs to force the shield to fire in conditions where the shield’s own projectiles become the threat. The defence and the attack converge on the same target. And the oil burns either way.

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

21,810 次观看 • 4 个月前