| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2017 13:40 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Just gotta consider ourselves lucky the Project Veritas buffoons went for the Post and not CNN. They're small fries, but surely total buffoons at this point. The stupid idea behind the sting, and the even stupider execution probably couldn't have hooked CNN. She literally walked into Veritas's NY offices after. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2017 14:08 Nyxisto wrote: I feel like there should be more uproar about the fact that well-funded right-wing organisations exist in the US that apparently try to bring the media into miscredit. This is stuff you expect from foreign propaganda. Is it even legal to try to damage the reputation of a newspaper like this? Sounds like some form of libel or defamation There was plenty of uproar after what that bunch did to ACORN. For his part, he settled for $100,000 and has had other run-ins with the law since. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35095 Posts
On December 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote: You know what's funny? I said a very narrow case that's absolutely applicable here, and all you can do is rattle off the political affiliations represented in this video. Listen: When you're done naming off Republicans and Democrats when I didn't mention any political sides, maybe you can read it again and give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, you're just another person that can't see past the word Trump. Partisanry doesn't exist without "political sides" being an implicit part of the discussion. Trump isn't part of his own party and it's not like Bush was well liked by Democrats. I'm giving you exactly the credit you're due by calling out your buffoonery. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2017 16:39 Gahlo wrote: Partisanry doesn't exist without "political sides" being an implicit part of the discussion. Trump isn't part of his own party and it's not like Bush was well liked by Democrats. I'm giving you exactly the credit you're due by calling out your buffoonery. You have a problem, and it's a deep problem. I explicitly stated my intentions to have clarity on the subject beyond partisanship, and you gave a useful illustration about exactly what I find distasteful. >I think we should admit the fact that presidents in the past promised as much as Trump finally did. It's useful to show you can approach the issue with clear analysis before talking if its a good or bad idea. >>I'm going to bring up their party affiliations and accuse you of hiding something. If you insist on proving my point, I say go right ahead. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:49 Plansix wrote: Trump: “I ignored the advises of the military, congress and most of the nations in the world to do something that will make Americans less safe worldwide and got nothing in return. I make the best deals.” Taking a victory lap for being an idiot is a very Trump thing to do. it's all part of the plan, baiting Iran \ Hezbollah into a new war with Israel | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35095 Posts
On December 09 2017 16:55 Danglars wrote: You have a problem, and it's a deep problem. I explicitly stated my intentions to have clarity on the subject beyond partisanship, and you gave a useful illustration about exactly what I find distasteful. >I think we should admit the fact that presidents in the past promised as much as Trump finally did. It's useful to show you can approach the issue with clear analysis before talking if its a good or bad idea. >>I'm going to bring up their party affiliations and accuse you of hiding something. If you insist on proving my point, I say go right ahead. So you're admitting that he done goofed by going through with this despite there being no benefit for it? That he didn't display the wisdom previous presidents had by walking back that very same campaign promise? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2017 17:07 Gahlo wrote: So you're admitting that he done goofed by going through with this despite there being no benefit for it? That he didn't display the wisdom previous presidents had by walking back that very same campaign promise? I'm glad to have you back from the partisan forest for a bit, but I fear your first comment was so faltering that I must ask that you go back to the original premise. Agree or disagree? It's there in the quote chain and there's no use going forward if the facts shift to labels and labels to accusations. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On December 09 2017 15:08 Danglars wrote: There was plenty of uproar after what that bunch did to ACORN. For his part, he settled for $100,000 and has had other run-ins with the law since. When you have donors behind you, fines and settlements become operational costs and nothing more. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35095 Posts
On December 09 2017 18:02 Danglars wrote: I'm glad to have you back from the partisan forest for a bit, but I fear your first comment was so faltering that I must ask that you go back to the original premise. Agree or disagree? It's there in the quote chain and there's no use going forward if the facts shift to labels and labels to accusations. I agree. An idiot did a stupid thing because he said he would. Don't see why there's a reason to pat him on the back for it. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On December 09 2017 17:05 ImFromPortugal wrote: it's all part of the plan, baiting Iran \ Hezbollah into a new war with Israel There are surely a lot of people within the Trump administration who recognize that an overt war with Iran is a potential lifeline for them to remain in power. Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran, until there is an escalation to a ground invasion. Then I'm like 80% positive that if a centrist Democrat wins in 2020, that they'll keep Mattis, Kelly etc. in the administration and that they will be very deferential to them on military matters. Even if they explicitly run on a campaign promise of winding down the war. | ||
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote: Just to be clear, the claim that the US would actually try to bait another country into sinking one of its ships is bold and in my opinion very unlikely to be true. I think you were using it as more of an example though than a description of actual strategy.Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote: Just to be clear, the claim that the US would actually try to bait another country into sinking one of its ships is bold and in my opinion very unlikely to be true. I think you were using it as more of an example though than a description of actual strategy. I don't see how exactly a war between Iran and the US could get started, but I think it is obvious that this is an active desire of many people within the military and within the GOP. This means that it makes sense for them to in some fashion provoke a war by antagonizing Iran, for instance by stepping up its covert warfare programs, by more aggressively asserting its military presence, by insisting on isolating Iran economically with punitive sanctions, by using military force against any of the non-state groups which have tacit Iranian support (e.g. Yemen, Syria) and generally by antagonizing Iran diplomatically. I don't know if they would be so bold to literally invent a pretext or stage a false flag, probably not, but they must certainly be interested in anything which increases chances of war with Iran which still gives plausible deniability. The US media is no longer as complicit and meek as it was during the Iraq years, and Iran is both a more formidable opponent and less isolated than the US. I'm sure that it is not that easy for them to achieve their desired regime change in Iran, and the Trump administration is not exactly subtle. But who knows, I think it's good to be on the lookout for any of the signs, such as increased military presence in neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote: Just to be clear, the claim that the US would actually try to bait another country into sinking one of its ships is bold and in my opinion very unlikely to be true. I think you were using it as more of an example though than a description of actual strategy. I mean there is Operation Northwoods, Operation Mongoose, Operation Bingo, and Operation Dirty Trick, but other than that, totally ridiculous. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On December 09 2017 23:39 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean there is Operation Northwoods, Operation Mongoose, Operation Bingo, and Operation Dirty Trick, but other than that, totally ridiculous. None of those show a precedent for sacrificing a US warship as a pretext for military operations against another nation, or anything similar. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On December 10 2017 00:22 micronesia wrote: None of those show a precedent for sacrificing a US warship as a pretext for military operations against another nation, or anything similar. Not a ship, but certainly sacrificing American lives and assets as pretext for military operations against another nation. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On December 10 2017 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Not a ship, but certainly sacrificing American lives and assets as pretext for military operations against another nation. Were any American lives actually sacrificed like that? All I found is that a plan was knocked around and rejected (a good thing). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On December 10 2017 00:37 micronesia wrote: Were any American lives actually sacrificed like that? All I found is that a plan was knocked around and rejected (a good thing). I mean depending on the timeline of sacrifice you could count the Gulf of Tonkin but the point is just that it's not that far afield. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On December 10 2017 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean depending on the timeline of sacrifice you could count the Gulf of Tonkin but the point is just that it's not that far afield. I'm saying it's a very large jump from events you have identified to the US using it's warship as bait and sacrificing it via enemy fire in order to more directly enter a conflict, not a small one. I'm all for a bit of healthy cynicism, but we should call a spade a spade. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Shuttle Stormgate 5230Jaedong  690sorry  79Snow 72Barracks 48Hyun 39NotJumperer 31SilentControl 15soO 14IntoTheRainbow 6Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing1712 Beastyqt1281 hiko1054 Lowko381 ceh9353 XBOCT322 Skadoodle300 Fuzer  247crisheroes246 Liquid`VortiX164 KnowMe121 elazer74 Dewaltoss37 |
|
Code For Giants Cup
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
