Not Good - Iran Escalation (flame war)


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.  

You didn't like the number of coups you found, did you?

So dishonest. And just minutes ago you accused me of deflection!

You get jokey when your intellectual position has collapsed because you are a dishonest discussant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Nice appeal to authority. Nice fail.

I know it by understanding the destructive power of conventional bombs and comparing that to the number of structures and the physical extent of the target.

 

And you know this how? You make yourself sound like an expert but I doubt you are. You can't be trusted.

Peter, headquarters and headquarters battery, seventh infantry division artillery, signing off. And remember Scouts, artillery is spelled with an e and not artillary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Peter said:

And you know this how? You make yourself sound like an expert but I doubt you are. You can't be trusted.

Peter, headquarters and headquarters battery, seventh infantry division artillery, signing off. And remember Scouts, artillery is spelled with an e and not artillary. 

By reading books.

So you are saying it could all be done in a week with conventional kinetics only, as previously asserted.

And you know it because seventh infantry division artillery.

Very good.

Then explain it to us. Spell out the number of targets and their locations that we will hit each day of the one week. Cite our number of bombers, cruise missiles, etc and the targets they could destroy, if left unmolested, per day. Put it all together for us, Shit-for-Brains.

It is quite obviously impossible to anyone who grasps the facts. Besides which, the important stuff is underground and cannot be much affected by conventional munitions. They can burrow before going off, but the Iranians have gone deep and only burrowing nuke munitions would touch them. Again, by reading books, Shit-for-Brains.

I truly cannot wait to see your demonstration otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The New York Times. Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back by Michael D. Shear, Eric Schmitt, Michael Crowley and Maggie Haberman

WASHINGTON — President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions. As late as 7 p.m. Thursday, military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.

Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries. The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.

The abrupt reversal put a halt to what would have been the president’s third military action against targets in the Middle East. Mr. Trump had struck twice at targets in Syria, in 2017 and 2018. It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.

Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article. The retaliation plan was intended as a response to the shooting down of the unmanned, $130 million surveillance drone, which was struck Thursday morning by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, according to a senior administration official who was briefed on the military planning and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential plans. The strike was set to take place just before dawn Friday in Iran to minimize risk to the Iranian military or to civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A $130 million drone. Why did it cost so much? That seems excessive if it can be shot down by a surface to air missile launched from Iran. I can only think WE thought the drone would be safe and do a good job.

The fact that the Presidential OK was given and then revoked AND those facts made it into the pages of The New York Times (famous for their crossword puzzles, a half joke) speaks volumes but I will not give the Iranians the benefit of my deep insight into the mind of the most brilliant President since Jefferson. OK. Maybe. Ruse? Shaking their tree? Additional facts were added to the equation, and the military may not be as ready as some advisors thought? But the threat is on the table.

Remember the rationale for beginning the Viet Nam War? If we do a US Naval ship sail by of Iran but in international waters and the Iranians do something vicious, that would be a definite reason for retaliation with force, but why put Americans in danger like that?. The Dow hit an all-time high today and the market might drop like that drone, and that is a circumstance that would have the Iranian Guard dancing in the street, shouting ”Death to America.”

Those pukes took Americans hostage under the Carter regime and released them the day Reagan was inaugurated. They saw the writing on the wall then, and perhaps America’s response with President Trump will surpass that. We won’t be fighting to “free” Iran. We will be fighting to destroy their military capability. So, I don’t think a ground war is on the table as in Viet Nam or Iraq. But you never know.

Fox is saying at 11:55 pm that there are unsubstantiated reports the drone was knocked down by “a rogue Iranian General.” Iran may be trying to walk it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYT, Pelosi, Chuckie, the entire Deep State wants strikes, escalation and war. I believe he told them he would do it in the meeting today and that is why they looked happier than pigs in shit leaving the meeting.

Then he cancelled on them 😀 trolling their dumb asses. They will not get their war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Kennedy’s Show on Fox, a military expert mentioned that our General's military briefing around noon today mentioned the IRGC 4 times. He said the IRGC is almost like a country within a country. The General was making a distinction between “Iran the country” and “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard.” Check out some old news. Iran's IRGC Commander has defected to the West By Pamela Geller - on April 24, 2019.

We may focus the cross hairs on The IRGC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$130 million, yeah, why so much? Oh, I don't know, maybe because it was as I said earlier, a very high-flying, very highly sophisticated craft they were not even thought to possess the ability to take down? You think maybe?  You think maybe this means we could not in fact fly around their vast country with bombers doing whatever, after all? You think maybe this surprise changed our understanding of what weapons they possess and lowered the appetite for more surprises?

Strange that they have such fancy shit, isn't it? And North Korea, too. How is a fat incompetent loser who can't feed his people engineering fine inter-continental ICBMs? Given to him by the deep state enemy Trump is up against? Same for Iran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ktAX5u2i_bigger.jpgTom FittonVerified account @TomFitton
FollowFollow @TomFitton
More

BIG ARMS SCANDAL: Smoking gun docs uncovered by @JudicialWatch show Obama/Clinton were aware arms going to Syria through Benghazi and were warned about rise of ISIS, and they were supporting terrorists in Syria. Obama/Clinton created Syria/Iran mess. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/ 

PLsTrGYS_normal.png Judicial Watch 🔎
/>
9:32
320K views
 
Obama Admin & Hillary Clinton Affected Ongoing Syrian Conflict
7:37 PM - 20 Jun 2019
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

NYT, Pelosi, Chuckie, the entire Deep State wants strikes, escalation and war. I believe he told them he would do it in the meeting today and that is why they looked happier than pigs in shit leaving the meeting.

Then he cancelled on them 😀 trolling their dumb asses. They will not get their war.

Pelosi claps and laughs to (hide your kids from) Chuckie Schumer pumping both fists in the air. Have they been seen this happy in two years? Orange Man said yes!! Yay! War!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Strange that they have such fancy shit, isn't it?

 

5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Almost sounds like the IRGC has been taken over by something not Iranian. Gosh, whatever could that mean?

 

5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Pelosi claps and laughs to (hide your kids from) Chuckie Schumer pumping both fists in the air. Have they been seen this happy in two years? Orange Man said yes!! Yay! War!

'Tis revealing, Pelosi et al's glee at the prospect of escalation.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clear as custard. The mullahs badly need the Democrats back in. They know full well modern Dems are the great appeasers. That way, they will have pretty much a free hand (and funding) for their "hegenomic ambitions" across the region, in several countries: weaken their Saudi opponents, get sanctions lifted/reduced, would easily bluff their way to being a nuclear weapon power, then the weak, apologist EU runs in to start up industries, and so on. So whatever it takes - show up, belittle, test him, get him to look belligerent or indecisive, ("bumble into war" - Schumer put it) or maybe have some Iranian " innocent victims" killed, make him backtrack his public promise to pull back US military operations - anything they reckon will cost President Trump votes. They win at the US ballot box.

Looks like in these situations it is mostly lose-lose for a civilised country which does the best to avoid unnecessary conflict, vs. one which isn't constrained by such moral values. A shrewd enemy like Iran knows that! Hey, because Iranian and Arab leaders wear robes, don't think they are not smart, don't underestimate their ability to spin public relations/ propaganda They have always understood it is public opinion and the leftist western media that wins their wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

 

'Tis revealing, Pelosi et al's glee at the prospect of escalation.

Ellen

They came up with a real good one to explain once the video got out.

Almost as good as Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch discussed grandkids, or golf and grandkids, that day on the plane on the tarmac.

They say that Nancy had just asked Chuck about his mom, who had just been released from the hospital and Chuck is simply exuberantly informing Nancy that she was released from the hospital. Raise the roof!! Pump the fists, or whatever the fuck he is doing — isn’t that how everyone tells good news like leaving hospitals? Has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the meeting they were leaving wherein they got Trump to agree to strikes that he later reversed, nothing, nothing, nothing to do with that. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Peter said:

CIA black op sites in Iran? Did Natural News tell you that or did "the voices" inform you?

I wasn’t hostile until after this shit from shithead-in-Chief.

Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits  such as yourself. You chose that, you launched it. Watch your fucking mouth and there will be no future trouble with me, get it? Show some respect and we will do great together, it’s very simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Clear as custard

President Trump reprinted from National Review: . . . . On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not . . . . proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!

From King Richard II: “On pain of death, no person be so bold’

I agree. The hastily planned retaliation was not proportionate, and may have included innocents in the casualties. So, now we have the eyes of Iran and the eyes of the world fixedly focused for the next day and the next few weeks. Iran will go about its business but like a child will be more careful about what they do. What will our President do to keep them jittery and cussing the Mullahs? A sonic boom? Peter   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I wasn’t hostile until after this shit from shithead-in-Chief.

Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits  such as yourself. You chose that, you launched it. Watch your fucking mouth and there will be no future trouble with me, get it? Show some respect and we will do great together, it’s very simple. 

A man may be a fool and not know it, but not if he is married.—H. L. Mencken
Wit is educated insolence.—Aristotle

If you are serious, fine. But you must speak civilly. When you defame a person with terms like retard, or moron, or the even lower shithead, you aren’t just exaggerating. You are lying. I would not be here on OL and you would not be defaming me if I were uneducated or with a low IQ.

Now here is an example of two similar phrases: If you sound and act like “trailer park trash” etc. etc. And, If you sound and act like a hateful critic etc. etc.

The first phrase is not conducive to civilized discourse, but the second may keep the conversation lively. Some have speculated that You, Jon, as with any “socially challenged” individual can’t or won’t grasp this . . .  but I know you know what you are doing. Cease all cussing and name calling unless it is “couched” in such a way as to make a point but does not defame. Peter

Notes. If life were fair, Elvis would be alive and his impersonators would be dead.—Johnny Carson
In politics never retreat, never retract, never admit a mistake.—Napoleon Bonaparte
An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's.—Will Rogers
Make crime pay: become a lawyer.—Will Rogers
A fool and his money are soon elected.—Will Rogers
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.—Oscar Wilde
I don't approve of political jokes; I have seen too many of them get elected.—Jon Stewart
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.—Groucho Marx
Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins.—Native American proverb
Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.—Thomas Jefferson
Sit next to a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. Sit on a red-hot stove for a minute, it seems like an hour. That's relativity!Albert Einstein
It's not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog.—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything We Know About Iran's Claim That It Shot Down A U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk Drone (Updated)

The Pentagon won't comment in detail about the incident and there is already confusion as to what type was actually lost. 

BY TYLER ROGOWAYJUNE 20, 2019

And not just any drone, an RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) spy drone. This is the most advanced unmanned system currently being employed operationally by the Air Force in a non-secretive manner. RQ-4s, which carry a full suite of electro-optical, radar, and electronic intelligence gathering systems spy from on high, often skirt along the edge of territorial boundaries in order to peer into a targeted country from a slant angle, are highly active in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. 

...

There have also been reports that the variant of Global Hawk that was shot down was actually a U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance drone. There's an issue with those reports—to our knowledge, there are no MQ-4Cs in the region. In fact, the MQ-4C is slated to make its very first deployment ever to Guam—which is literally on the other side of the planet—this Summer.”

Regardless, if Iran's claims are even remotely true, and a U.S. drone was swatted down by their hand, the security situation in the airspace off the Iranian coast has just become far more volatile. 

We are now getting multiple reports that officials within the Pentagon are confirming that this was an MQ-4C. This means the aircraft secretly deployed to the region.”

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28613/everything-we-know-about-irans-claim-that-it-shot-down-a-u-s-rq-4-global-hawk-drone

It could also mean that the Pentagon is in shock that they took down not the less advanced, lower-flying MQ-4C, but indeed, the RQ-4 Global Hawk, which means they can also take down F-35s at will, as they have similar stealthiness but fly lower. Thats the very last thing the Pentagon would want to admit, would want the world to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter said:

The hastily planned retaliation was not proportionate, and may have included innocents in the casualtie

And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that President Trump was doing a head fake by ordering, then calling off the attack.

Rope-a-dope and head fakes are two of his favorite tactics. I don't see him changing this just because of scope.

So we have to wait and see what happens.

Based on Trump's past, I think it likely something unexpected is going to happen that will cause a big splash and probably resolve a lot.

As to Pelosi and Schumer, they are funded by the war machine (military-industrial complex). No wonder they were happy. More bombs means more money in their coffers. The anti-war left (like Jimmy Dore) constantly bitch about them for this. They also bitch about CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.

Notice that every time President Trump does something warlike, the leftie war-mongering press suddenly goes soft on him. Remember Brian Williams calling the 2017 Syrian strike "beautiful," saying things like "beauty of our weapons" and so on? 

They only go hard on President Trump when he does things like increase the prosperity of average citizens.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen wrote: And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer. end quote

No. I don’t see Niccolò Machiavelli in President Trump. I am not a psychologist or an expert in body language but when he speaks and suddenly realizes he is killing two rats with one stone, he smiles (and it’s not a smirk) so I don’t think he is, scheming, or unscrupulous.

For your sentence to be true, he was not addressing a grave public concern. Instead, he was going after political enemies, as is seen in dictators like Kim Jun Un. I don’t think so Ellen.

Years ago, Ellen wrote: Jeff Riggenbach started a thread addressed to Jimbo's arguments and using the words "functional illiterate," a favorite epithet of JR's, in the thread title. end quote

People on OL can be like Jeff Riggenbach. Peter

Mach·i·a·vel·li·an ADJECTIVE cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: I suspect that President Trump was doing a head fake by ordering, then calling off the attack. Rope-a-dope and head fakes are two of his favorite tactics. I don't see him changing this just because of scope. end quote

I agree. You posted just as I was about to post my response to Ellen. Smart, cunning, and the occasional political jabs, which can be subtle or obvious, are in his armory. Though El Presidente is definitely not unscrupulous which is part of Machiavelli’s definition.

I say a public and viewable response to Iran will come within a month. But behind the scenes? The wheels are already churning. Peter

Mach·i·a·vel·li·an ADJECTIVE cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Peter said:

The first phrase is not conducive to civilized discourse, but the second may keep the conversation lively. Some have speculated that You, Jon, as with any “socially challenged” individual can’t or won’t grasp this . . .  but I know you know what you are doing. Cease all cussing and name calling unless it is “couched” in such a way as to make a point but does not defame. Peter

I fear you still don’t get it, Peter. First, I have no idea what it is you say I am doing.

I will not cease cussing and attacking you, Peter, every time you attack me with some cheap insult couched as “light humor.” Fuck your light humor. I will attack you viciously every single fucking time.

Treat me with respect and there will be no need to worry about what happens when you don’t. Get it yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Ellen has any insights into President Trump’s psychology, without psychologizing of course. Peter

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis, Michael Hardy <hardy Subject: ATL: Where Is Experience? (was....subconscious [vs.] unconscious) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:05:03 -0400

Mike uses a form of expression which relates to an issue I've been puzzling about for a long time. He writes: "Internally" means introspectively, and introspection means directly observing what's going on inside your head. When I was very young -- three through five plus -- I used that form of expression --"in my head" -- and I still sometimes use it as convenient terminology for particular contexts.  But from the time I was going on six, I've been wondering just exactly WHERE one's experience is. Experience has an odd locale, a nebulous locale.  It sort of seems to be someplace, but if you really try to notice, *what* place?

Consider the experience of touch.  What I experience is simultaneously a feeling of surface and a sense of pressure.  The feeling of surface has characteristics which identify it as a specific kind of surface -- e.g., wood, plastic, metal, fabric; with specific details -- rough wood versus smooth wood, crinkly versus smooth plastic; silk versus leather versus terrycloth, etc., etc.  The sense of pressure has a large range of characteristics -- e.g., lightly delicate to heavy pressure, pressure mixed with the sense of heat or cold, or pain.

Where does this touch experience occur?  To me, it seems to have a non-precisely-specifiable location somewhere partly in the substance touched, partly in my skin, partly somewhere between. (Try the experiment of touching things with your eyes closed, so you don't have visual cues of location, and try to specify the locale of the experience.)

Consider one's thought processes.  Well, sometimes it seems to me that my thoughts actually are happening IN my head, as if they're heard in a sort of imagined hollow sphere residing between my ears. Other times it seems more as if I'm listening to them from a sort of ghostly set of headphones more or less positioned outside my ears.  Other times, when I'm carried away by a thought process, and nothing is going on which distracts, it will seem as if my thoughts are filling a sort of "field" which extends to a non-specifiable (generally spherical) distance around me.

Consider visual experience:  where's the locus of what one sees? The objects of direct visual perception -- the objects which I see by means of light waves entering my eyes -- I experience as being out there in the world, with me looking at them.  But when it comes to images -- ranging from daytime images to dreams -- then I can't clearly specify a "where."  Sometimes images seem to be kind of in the air before me (though I've been known to have images of things which seemed to be behind me).  Sometimes the locale has the semblance of being within a sphere within my head.  Other times -- especially when I'm lying with my eyes closed in a darkened room, or when I'm dreaming -- the images seem to be an existent world -- a virtual world, if you will -- which *I* am within (instead of the images being within me). Ellen S.

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The difference between the subconscious and the unconscious Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:59:21 -0400

Christian Ross wrote We know that there are parts of the brain that when "disabled" make recognition of previously known objects impossible.  We know that abstractions such as personality are also related to the physicality of the brain.  (i.e. damage to the frontal lobe).

<<<<  ((this is in brief regard to "where is experience"))  >>>>

I replied: I'm assuming that the parenthesized comment refers to my post titled "Where Is Experience?"

> Knowledge of which parts of the brain are necessary in order for us to have certain experiences doesn't tell us anything about the experiences.  I was reflecting on *what* I experience, not on the mechanics of how I'm enabled to experience.  >>>

Christian says: <<  I was attempting (very briefly) to suggest that in order to understand "what" and "where" experience is--one must understand that there is in fact no difference between the abstract sense that you are reflecting on, and the mechanical sense I have invoked.  >>

I'm not sure what Christian means by "abstract sense," but if he's attempting to say that there's no difference between the "what" and the "how" of experience, then I must strenuously disagree. What we experience is seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, thinking, dreaming, etc.  We don't experience, for example, chemical changes in the retina, neurons firing, nerve impulses propagating, etc. We don't even know that any such events are occurring until we become scientifically advanced enough to discover that they're occurring.

I suspect, from the remainder of Christian's response (see below) that he misunderstood the issue I was raising.  I was describing phenomenology, attempting to say in words....well, how shall I put this? "the 'seeming' of experience?"  I raised the issue here only because Mike had used the phrase "inside your head," a phrase which connects to memories of my earliest attempts at giving verbal expression to the phenomena of consciousness.  I wondered if anyone would respond with self-reports such as the brief one I gave.  I wasn't proposing any form of separation between biology and consciousness.

In regard to Nathaniel Branden's work, which Christian mentions: the issue I was talking about isn't the same sort of issue as Nathaniel discusses.  I've read the majority of NB's books. The only place I can recall where he makes more than passing reference to the type of phenomenological issue I meant is in *The Art of Living Consciously*, where he has some brief description of different states of consciousness. Ellen S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.