|
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. |
On December 09 2017 13:40 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 06:00 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 05:39 Nevuk wrote:
Goddamn
More shameful mistakes. I'm with everybody that there might be something underneath it all. I want investigations to expose or clear people of wrongdoing. What media outlets have been doing is provide fodder for a #FakeNews narrative by shoddy confirmation and rush-to-press bias. More careful attention to detail is clearly warranted, particularly when it rests on who knew what when. Suspicious timing is going to be viewed with far less credibility from here on out. 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.
|
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
|
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.
|
On December 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 09:03 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 07:49 MyTHicaL wrote:On December 09 2017 06:37 Danglars wrote:
Yep but no one else in the international community believes that. The three most popular relligions all hold claim to that area. Doing this is not fulfilling campaign promesses, it is however, a very facilitating reason to unite all arab countries against the US. GL if the Saudis, Turks, Persians ever get together... If we can agree on four presidents from current day and past all agreeing publicly that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then we're getting somewhere. Secondly, I don't see any reason to deny the narrow case: Trump promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Trump did start the process of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. I think it's an important point in treating all presidents fairly and not in a partisan manner to admit the basic fact. Trump isn't the only Republican in that group. Trying to hide behind other people being partisan doesn't work here. 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.
|
On December 09 2017 16:39 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 09:03 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 07:49 MyTHicaL wrote:Yep but no one else in the international community believes that. The three most popular relligions all hold claim to that area. Doing this is not fulfilling campaign promesses, it is however, a very facilitating reason to unite all arab countries against the US. GL if the Saudis, Turks, Persians ever get together... If we can agree on four presidents from current day and past all agreeing publicly that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then we're getting somewhere. Secondly, I don't see any reason to deny the narrow case: Trump promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Trump did start the process of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. I think it's an important point in treating all presidents fairly and not in a partisan manner to admit the basic fact. Trump isn't the only Republican in that group. Trying to hide behind other people being partisan doesn't work here. 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.
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.
|
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
|
On December 09 2017 16:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 16:39 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 09:03 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 07:49 MyTHicaL wrote:Yep but no one else in the international community believes that. The three most popular relligions all hold claim to that area. Doing this is not fulfilling campaign promesses, it is however, a very facilitating reason to unite all arab countries against the US. GL if the Saudis, Turks, Persians ever get together... If we can agree on four presidents from current day and past all agreeing publicly that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then we're getting somewhere. Secondly, I don't see any reason to deny the narrow case: Trump promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Trump did start the process of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. I think it's an important point in treating all presidents fairly and not in a partisan manner to admit the basic fact. Trump isn't the only Republican in that group. Trying to hide behind other people being partisan doesn't work here. 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. 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?
|
On December 09 2017 17:07 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 16:55 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 16:39 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 09:03 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 07:49 MyTHicaL wrote:Yep but no one else in the international community believes that. The three most popular relligions all hold claim to that area. Doing this is not fulfilling campaign promesses, it is however, a very facilitating reason to unite all arab countries against the US. GL if the Saudis, Turks, Persians ever get together... If we can agree on four presidents from current day and past all agreeing publicly that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then we're getting somewhere. Secondly, I don't see any reason to deny the narrow case: Trump promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Trump did start the process of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. I think it's an important point in treating all presidents fairly and not in a partisan manner to admit the basic fact. Trump isn't the only Republican in that group. Trying to hide behind other people being partisan doesn't work here. 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. 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?
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.
|
On December 09 2017 15:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
When you have donors behind you, fines and settlements become operational costs and nothing more.
|
On December 09 2017 18:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 17:07 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 16:55 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 16:39 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 09:03 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2017 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 09 2017 07:49 MyTHicaL wrote:Yep but no one else in the international community believes that. The three most popular relligions all hold claim to that area. Doing this is not fulfilling campaign promesses, it is however, a very facilitating reason to unite all arab countries against the US. GL if the Saudis, Turks, Persians ever get together... If we can agree on four presidents from current day and past all agreeing publicly that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then we're getting somewhere. Secondly, I don't see any reason to deny the narrow case: Trump promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Trump did start the process of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. I think it's an important point in treating all presidents fairly and not in a partisan manner to admit the basic fact. Trump isn't the only Republican in that group. Trying to hide behind other people being partisan doesn't work here. 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. 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? 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.
|
On December 09 2017 17:05 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
United States24736 Posts
On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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.
|
On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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.
|
On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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.
|
On the bright side, I imagine all the people responsible for war game theroy crafting are aware Donald needs a bump and would not hesitate to use Iran or North Korea as ratings boosters. They are likely going to be playing things extra safe.
|
United States24736 Posts
On December 09 2017 23:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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.
None of those show a precedent for sacrificing a US warship as a pretext for military operations against another nation, or anything similar.
|
On December 10 2017 00:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 23:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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. 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.
|
United States24736 Posts
On December 10 2017 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 00:22 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 23:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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. 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.
Were any American lives actually sacrificed like that? All I found is that a plan was knocked around and rejected (a good thing).
|
On December 10 2017 00:37 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2017 00:22 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 23:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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. 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. 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.
|
United States24736 Posts
On December 10 2017 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 00:37 micronesia wrote:On December 10 2017 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2017 00:22 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 23:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2017 23:08 micronesia wrote:On December 09 2017 22:58 Grumbels wrote:
Suppose that Iran is baited into sinking some US war ship and this is used as a pretext for bombing Iran 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. 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. 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
