The Mideast..here we go again....

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

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.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

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?

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

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?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Planigale

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?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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]

Originally Posted by theprestige

... 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.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

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]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

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?

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

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.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Planigale

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)

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Planigale

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?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Trump is the first president in literally decades who didn't start a war.

He's gotten awfully close a few times.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Venom

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.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Venom

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?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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

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.

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

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.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

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 Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...

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.

[theprestige]

Killing enemy military commanders is not murder. (Except in the pacifist, all war is murder sense.)

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by theprestige

... 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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

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.

[trustbutverify]

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.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

[The Atheist]

Back to old tried and failed non sequiturs, I see.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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

Well, they could shoot down another Ukranian passenger plane, slaughtering nearly 200 innocent bystanders

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

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 Atheist]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

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.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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?

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

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]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

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]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

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.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Planigale

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

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.