IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th November 2020, 11:31 PM   #41
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As usual, the predictions that Trump is on a hair trigger and about to wildly overreact with military force seem to be laughably overblown.
Trump is the first president in literally decades who didn't start a war.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 11:30 AM   #42
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
The New York Times is behind a paywall to non-subscribers, so I linked you to the Guardian quoting the New York Times as a courtesy.

Are you now denying Trump asked for military options to bomb Iran?
Hey, dneyuing that Trump said or did something, or trying to show he did not really mean
it is what Trumpism is all about. Dear Leader is incapable of error.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 12:11 PM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,663
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Hey, dneyuing that Trump said or did something, or trying to show he did not really mean
it is what Trumpism is all about. Dear Leader is incapable of error.
For what it's worth, I don't deny that Trump has said or done anything he's actually been shown to have said or done.

On the other hand, I do very often deny the unsupported chicken-little interpretations of what he's supposed to have said and done.

The way I see it, the president has a responsibility to regularly ask for and consider military options in response to Iran's regular acts of violence and terrorism and other reprehensible shenanigans. Recasting Trump's fulfillment of his presidential responsibility as loose-cannon warmongering is a hallmark of TDS.

---

There's also the problem of attribution, which I was hoping to get from the original source of the claim. Either it was leaked to the press by someone who wishes to undermine the administration, in which case you can't really trust their representation of what really happened at the meeting. Or it was leaked by someone who was told to do so in order to further the administration's interests... in which case you can't really trust their representation of what really happened at the meeting. Either way, it's a piss-poor basis for claiming to understand Trump's state of mind and preferred strategy regarding Iran. For all you know, the administration's preferred strategy is to do nothing, but to keep Iran in check by regularly leaking "meetings" where the president is totally super serious about going full HAM any minute now I swear.

But it's ludicrous to think that the NYT has a good grasp of what's really going on inside the White House, just because they told you some anonymous staffer told them... And it's ludicrous to think you have a good grasp of what's really going on just because you read the NYT...

... Do you read the NYT? It's behind a paywall; are you actually paying for it? (Do you think you're getting your money's worth?) Or are you reading/listening to other people who claim to be reading the NYT on your behalf and reporting accurately to you what the NYT is reporting accurately to them?

Last edited by theprestige; 1st December 2020 at 12:18 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 02:51 PM   #44
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,646
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
They'll hire Hezbollah to bomb a bus full of defenceless Israeli teenagers somewhere, then lie about it to everyone who will listen. Their Western stooges will then repeat those lies everywhere, as if they were true. When all plausible deniability finally evaporates, said stooges will simply justify the attack, and pretend the pathetic lying never happened.
Terrorism is terrorism. I am not sure blowing up civilians or gunning them down in Iran is less of a crime because the victim is a Muslim than if the victim is a Jew?
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 05:14 PM   #45
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Terrorism is terrorism. I am not sure blowing up civilians or gunning them down in Iran is less of a crime because the victim is a Muslim than if the victim is a Jew?
When did I say it was?
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 05:28 PM   #46
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, I'm denying your attempt to shift the burden of proof.
No. I gave you the quote and link as you asked for a citation.

Are you still denying Trump asked for options to bomb Iran?
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 05:32 PM   #47
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
... I do very often deny the unsupported chicken-little interpretations of what he's supposed to have said and done.
Trump Sought Options for Attacking Iran to Stop Its Growing Nuclear Program
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/u...n-nuclear.html
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked senior advisers in an Oval Office meeting on Thursday whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks. The meeting occurred a day after international inspectors reported a significant increase in the country’s stockpile of nuclear material, four current and former U.S. officials said on Monday.

A range of senior advisers dissuaded the president from moving ahead with a military strike. The advisers — including Vice President Mike Pence; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Christopher C. Miller, the acting defense secretary; and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — warned that a strike against Iran’s facilities could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 06:41 PM   #48
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,663
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
No. I gave you the quote and link as you asked for a citation.

Are you still denying Trump asked for options to bomb Iran?
I can't "still" deny something I never denied to begin with. I'm seeing a recurring theme of struggle to engage with what people actually say. dudalb with Trump, you with me. Every time I start to wonder if maybe folks are right about what Trump actually says and thinks, I get reminded that they're not even right about what I actually say and think when they have it in plain language right in front of them. They quote it and everything and *still* get it wrong. And then they wonder why I don't blindly trust them when they talk about what they know think believe imagine Trump has said.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 06:42 PM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,663
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Trump Sought Options for Attacking Iran to Stop Its Growing Nuclear Program
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/u...n-nuclear.html
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked senior advisers in an Oval Office meeting on Thursday whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks. The meeting occurred a day after international inspectors reported a significant increase in the country’s stockpile of nuclear material, four current and former U.S. officials said on Monday.

A range of senior advisers dissuaded the president from moving ahead with a military strike. The advisers — including Vice President Mike Pence; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Christopher C. Miller, the acting defense secretary; and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — warned that a strike against Iran’s facilities could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.
That's a roll-call of the meeting. Who reported it to the NYT?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 01:09 AM   #50
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,646
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
When did I say it was?
I haven't seen a condemnation of this terrorist attack. I haven't seen a call for drone strikes to kill those who ordered or contributed to the attack. I haven't heard a call for those countries involved to have sanctions brought against them.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 01:31 AM   #51
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,319
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I haven't seen a condemnation of this terrorist attack. I haven't seen a call for drone strikes to kill those who ordered or contributed to the attack. I haven't heard a call for those countries involved to have sanctions brought against them.
Bravo!

(it's only terrorism when "they" do it)
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 05:51 AM   #52
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I haven't seen a condemnation of this terrorist attack. I haven't seen a call for drone strikes to kill those who ordered or contributed to the attack. I haven't heard a call for those countries involved to have sanctions brought against them.
So I never claimed terrorist attacks against Jews are a worse crime than against Muslims. But I do claim targeting an unguarded tour bus full of Israeli teens is a worse crime than targeting the heavily guarded father of an enemies nuclear weapons program. Did you call for sanctions and drone strikes against all countries involved after the Burgas bus bombing?
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage

Last edited by trustbutverify; 2nd December 2020 at 07:05 AM.
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2020, 02:15 PM   #53
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,901
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Trump is the first president in literally decades who didn't start a war.
He's gotten awfully close a few times.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2020, 03:20 PM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,663
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
He's gotten awfully close a few times.
I would say the Bay of Pigs was awfully close. The Cuban Missile Crisis was awfully close. Barack Obama's "red line" on Syrian chemical weapons use would have been awfully close if he'd been serious about it. I would not say that asking for options versus Iran, considering those options, and discarding the ones that would probably start a war, is getting awfully close to starting a war.

---

I guess you could say the Soleimani strike was awfully close, but my position for years has been that Iran is already at war with us. So that would be more a case of getting awfully close to an escalation of a war that he didn't start.

One positive thing about the Soleimani strike was that Iran responded with a military attack on a military facility, rather than a terrorist retaliation against civilians. That's a huge improvement, in my book. And it stopped there, with no further escalation. Trump could have responded to Iran's response with another strike from the US side, but he didn't -- another nail in the coffin of the narrative that Trump is a crazy warmonger who can't wait to go full HAM. Too bad the damn thing is undead and just won't rest in peace.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2020, 03:41 PM   #55
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,288
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Whatever the outcome, I believe it'll be orders of magnitude less nasty than a nuclear-armed Iran. And since Iran already exports terrorism to soft targets anyway, it might not be much different from the status quo. Minus an Iranian nuclear scientist. I think the sky is gonna stay largely intact on this one.
You know, one could say similar things about Pakistan as they do about Iran, and yet funnily enough they haven't started a Nuclear War with India yet.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2020, 07:21 AM   #56
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You know, one could say similar things about Pakistan as they do about Iran, and yet funnily enough they haven't started a Nuclear War with India yet.
There's a serious misconception that the problem with states like Iran and Pakistan having nuclear weapons is that they will start a nuclear war. It isn't. The problem is that it allows them to engage in all sorts of other mischief with little recourse. As long as Pakistan doesn't start a nuclear war, they can keep funding terrorism in Afghanistan, and what are we going to do about it? We certainly aren't going to attack Pakistan directly. So as a matter of fact, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has been a major problem already.

Same thing with Iran. Nuclear weapons would allow them to ramp up their support for terrorism without fear of significant retaliation, because even another 9/11 isn't worth starting a nuclear war over.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2020, 07:23 AM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
He's gotten awfully close a few times.
How do you even measure that objectively?

And isn't getting close to but not actually starting a war better than actually starting a war?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2020, 01:28 PM   #58
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,461
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Trump is the first president in literally decades who didn't start a war.
This is highly dependant on how one defines war. The us hasn't been at war since 1945 as congress gets to declair war. As for conflicts other than war there certainly has been plenty going on, including strikes he ordered that could easily be thought of as acts of war.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2020, 03:04 PM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
This is highly dependant on how one defines war. The us hasn't been at war since 1945 as congress gets to declair war.
Congress hasn't said "declare war" since WW2. But various congressional acts since then have constituted war declarations in a legal sense, such as the authorization for the Afghanistan invasion. Other acts such as Clinton's involvement in Yugoslavia constitute a de facto war.

Quote:
As for conflicts other than war there certainly has been plenty going on, including strikes he ordered that could easily be thought of as acts of war.
Those conflicts are continuations of existing ones, not new ones. Trump didn't start them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2020, 03:24 PM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,663
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There's a serious misconception that the problem with states like Iran and Pakistan having nuclear weapons is that they will start a nuclear war. It isn't. The problem is that it allows them to engage in all sorts of other mischief with little recourse. As long as Pakistan doesn't start a nuclear war, they can keep funding terrorism in Afghanistan, and what are we going to do about it? We certainly aren't going to attack Pakistan directly. So as a matter of fact, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has been a major problem already.

Same thing with Iran. Nuclear weapons would allow them to ramp up their support for terrorism without fear of significant retaliation, because even another 9/11 isn't worth starting a nuclear war over.
Same with Kashmir. The conflict and suffering there continues because neither side can conclusively end it through conventional means. Any attempt to do so risks the other side triggering their "Jericho" option. By the same token, neither side has any real reason to concede. So that sucks. It sucks for the region, and it sucks for the world.

I for one don't want Iran to be able to underwrite its terrorist shenanigans and access to the Persian Gulf with a similar Jericho option.

There seems to be an unstated premise that if we just let Iran have nuclear weapons, they'll play nice with the region and the world. My premise is the opposite: Iran should not have nuclear weapons because Iran does not play nice.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 05:18 AM   #61
Roofgardener
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Just for the record, Fakhrizadeh wasn't a member of Hezbollah and hadn't ever attacked any Israelis, far less murdered any.
Perhaps not. However, he WAS a Brigadier General in the Islamic Republican Guard Corps.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
LOL. The Guardian Reports that the New York Times reports that... Do you have the actual cite from the NYT, about who they got the report from?
They got it from "un-named sources", just like ALL of their anti-Trump stories.
Obviously, newspapers have to use anonymous sources. But that only works if you trust the integrity of the newspaper. (e.g. that the un-named sources actually existed, and wheren't made up by the journalists).

Sadly, in the case of anything to do with Donald Trump, the NYT has long since lost any such credibility with me. I simply don't trust that these 'sources' actually exist.
Roofgardener is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 05:22 AM   #62
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,677
Trump Tower in Baku was financed by the Islamic Republican Guard Corps.
So if you are looking for persons supporting terrorists, you don't have to leave the US.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 08:16 AM   #63
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Trump Tower in Baku was financed by the Islamic Republican Guard Corps.
So if you are looking for persons supporting terrorists, you don't have to leave the US.
I just read the Wikipedia page on that. It's not clear from that when or how the IRGC was supposed to have been involved. But given that the project essentially collapsed, and so isn't generating any revenue for anyone, it seems more likely that Trump was indirectly supported by the IRGC than that he supported them. After all, if they were providing financing, then they are out of pocket, not Trump.

If the IRGC invested in a Trump project and got burned as a result, well, I think I'm OK with that outcome.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 10:42 AM   #64
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,319
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
Perhaps not. However, he WAS a Brigadier General in the Islamic Republican Guard Corps.
Worst defence of murder ever.

__________________________


Meanwhile, I'm struggling to find the consequences so far. Has Iran attacked anyone yet? Any murders/terrorist attacks? Anyone had their computer hacked?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 10:56 AM   #65
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,677
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

If the IRGC invested in a Trump project and got burned as a result, well, I think I'm OK with that outcome.
I'm not OK with Trump either having done no due diligence or being okay with breaking US sanctions.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 9th December 2020 at 10:59 AM.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 10:56 AM   #66
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,663
Killing enemy military commanders is not murder. (Except in the pacifist, all war is murder sense.)
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 11:21 AM   #67
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 14,669
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
... but my position for years has been that Iran is already at war with us. So that would be more a case of getting awfully close to an escalation of a war that he didn't start.
Nice work, a permanent excuse. How handy. Now it's all eye of the beholder. Just add slippery GOP vocabulary and "just kidding" disclaimers for quickly swapping the king with the jester whenever pressed on royal whim.

The extrajudicial killing of Soleimani, an act of war, has not been shown to be in response to a clear and present danger, or if so, that level of "did stuff, might do stuff again" danger is also represented by the USA as well, meaning it is hardly a differentiator. Whatever Iran's response, Trump let slip the dogs of war. For if we fully rewind the conflict with Iran, we have the CIA overthrow of its elected government as proximate and precipitating cause. Doesn't mean Iranians don't suck, but international law is precisely required when everyone is a bad faith player by habit or design.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 9th December 2020 at 11:25 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 11:25 AM   #68
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I'm not OK with Trump either having done no due diligence or being okay with breaking US sanctions.
Without knowing how (and when) the IRCG was involved with the project, I'm not ready to conclude that either of those things happened. For example, did they only get involved after Trump dropped out? Did they act through intermediaries which successfully hid their involvement until well after the fact? No idea. The Wikipedia article provides basically no details. Perhaps you've seen more, but you haven't provided more.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 11:28 AM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
For if we fully rewind the conflict with Iran, we have the CIA overthrow of its elected government as proximate and precipitating cause.
You seem confused as to what "proximate" means. Mossadegh was booted in 1953. The Iranian revolution was in 1979. That's 26 years apart. That's not proximate.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 03:43 PM   #70
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,886
More Jewish terrorism in Iran:

Quote:
An Israeli flag and an English sign reading “Thank you, Mossad” were placed over a billboard in Iran on Monday, following the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist last month, allegedly by Israel.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 05:06 PM   #71
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Meanwhile, I'm struggling to find the consequences so far. Has Iran attacked anyone yet? Any murders/terrorist attacks? Anyone had their computer hacked
Well, they could shoot down another Ukranian passenger plane, slaughtering nearly 200 innocent bystanders, and deny it ever happened for several days, only to have their own countrymen expose the lie with cell phone video. That should show the Zionist pigs who they're messing with.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage

Last edited by trustbutverify; 9th December 2020 at 05:13 PM.
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2020, 09:06 PM   #72
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,319
Back to old tried and failed non sequiturs, I see.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2020, 06:11 AM   #73
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,576
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Meanwhile, I'm struggling to find the consequences so far. Has Iran attacked anyone yet? Any murders/terrorist attacks? Anyone had their computer hacked?
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Well, they could shoot down another Ukranian passenger plane, slaughtering nearly 200 innocent bystanders
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Back to old tried and failed non sequiturs, I see.
Looks like "Iran attacked anyone", "murders/terrorist attacks" or "computer hacked" counts, but "shooting down civilian aircraft with 200 people" does not for some reason.

Don't falsely scream "nonsequitur" to answer that you do not like.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2020, 11:55 AM   #74
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,319
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Looks like "Iran attacked anyone", "murders/terrorist attacks" or "computer hacked" counts, but "shooting down civilian aircraft with 200 people" does not for some reason.
I don't believe that was in retaliation for the earlier attacks. They launched missiles at retaliatory targets and the shooting down of the airliner occurred days later.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2020, 12:47 PM   #75
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,319
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Don't falsely scream "nonsequitur" to answer that you do not like.
It's a non sequitur because it has nothing to do with the murder of Fakhrizadeh-Mahavadi.

Although, given the inability to understand logic, context or how to present evidence around here, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone claim it was a pre-emptive retaliation.

Meanwhile, Iran's retaliation to that murder consists of harsh words. No bombs, no missiles, nothing.

I do love people who support extra-judicial execution.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2020, 10:06 PM   #76
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 14,669
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You seem confused as to what "proximate" means. Mossadegh was booted in 1953. The Iranian revolution was in 1979. That's 26 years apart. That's not proximate.
The 1953 events are indeed isolated from significant prior US history in Iran, making them a good starting point for any history wishing to discuss US-Iranian relations, as those events lay an explanatory foundation for the many reactions to them ever since, culminating at one point in the Iranian Revolution, with the dynamics continuing today. In the appropriate sense given in the original post, and here, proximate, as in "immediately preceding or following in a chain of causation."

Perhaps your point, poorly expressed to the point of being missing, is that one can choose to portray events as episodic or ongoing; a case of eye of the beholder, or analytical preference, as I pointed out. However, this actually reaffirms my own underlying message, which is precisely that playing around with how much -- or how little -- historical context one allows, one opens the door to acontextual, misleading snapshot-based reasoning, which was prestige's method adopted here for know-nothing Republican nonsense.... which you applaud. OMG. Baby rattle?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 10th December 2020 at 10:08 PM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2020, 12:01 AM   #77
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,646
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
Perhaps not. However, he WAS a Brigadier General in the Islamic Republican Guard Corps.


They got it from "un-named sources", just like ALL of their anti-Trump stories.
Obviously, newspapers have to use anonymous sources. But that only works if you trust the integrity of the newspaper. (e.g. that the un-named sources actually existed, and wheren't made up by the journalists).

Sadly, in the case of anything to do with Donald Trump, the NYT has long since lost any such credibility with me. I simply don't trust that these 'sources' actually exist.
So we all use the same terminology can we take it that killing in a non combat situation an unarmed active or reserve member of the military whether Iranian or Israeli or US is not terrorism but a legitimate military action?

That killing US occupation forces in Iraq or Israeli occupation forces in Lebanon or Syria or Palestine are legitimate military actions?

I just find it confusing when killing unarmed Iranians who offer no immediate threat in a non combat situation in their own country or a country to which they are a legitimate visitor at the request of the government is a legitimate act and not terrorism. But attacking armed invaders is terrorism.

Personally my view is that killing people who do not offer an immediate threat is criminal terrorism. I do not support extra-judicial execution; I do not support judicial execution.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2020, 12:05 AM   #78
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,646
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Well, they could shoot down another Ukranian passenger plane, slaughtering nearly 200 innocent bystanders, and deny it ever happened for several days, only to have their own countrymen expose the lie with cell phone video. That should show the Zionist pigs who they're messing with.
I do not think that anyone thinks that the shooting down of the passenger plane was anything but an error by an over alert air defence system, the US also has a track record on this. The US also initially denied shooting down an airliner.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2020, 12:12 AM   #79
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,646
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
So I never claimed terrorist attacks against Jews are a worse crime than against Muslims. But I do claim targeting an unguarded tour bus full of Israeli teens is a worse crime than targeting the heavily guarded father of an enemies nuclear weapons program. Did you call for sanctions and drone strikes against all countries involved after the Burgas bus bombing?
No such event happened. Please identify an attack on a bus full of Israeli teens by Iran.

I am consistent in my view that drone strikes are wrong, I have never called for them. Most general sanctions are wrong, they harm innocent people. How many people have died in Iran because US sanctions limit access to medical drugs and equipment? Are those deaths of Iranians as a consequence of sanctions less valuable? You are as dead because you cannot get treatment for a curable cancer as you are if you are blown up.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2020, 01:39 AM   #80
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,319
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
No such event happened. Please identify an attack on a bus full of Israeli teens by Iran.
What amuses me is that if the boot were on the other foot, people would be screaming anti-semitism.

But if they're Shia, it's ok - they're not real people, just like ******* weren't in USA only a few decades back.

Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Most general sanctions are wrong, they harm innocent people. How many people have died in Iran because US sanctions limit access to medical drugs and equipment? Are those deaths of Iranians as a consequence of sanctions less valuable? You are as dead because you cannot get treatment for a curable cancer as you are if you are blown up.
Well said.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.