Jump to content
Nebraska

Now That Trump's President...

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, goDel said:

Also, must say that compared to some bullshit article on the newstateman (or somesuch) that was linked to on this forum, this vid makes a hell of a lot more sense.

The reporting on Iran in US media tends to be heavily biased. It's practically propaganda, if you ask me. Intentionally, or unintentionally. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but anytime you read something related to the middle east with a clear good guy/bad guy narrative, you can safely assume it's either incompetent journalism or blatant propaganda. 

You think this video by some random neckbeard makes more sense than the one written by a journalist who's actually spent time in the region, has spent years developing sources and hearing stories from the people who actually live in the region?

It's hilarious you mention a guy/bad guy narrative, and think the video makes a lot of sense, when the video itself is guilty of doing exactly that, just turning the tables and painting the US as the pantomime villain. Iran isn't some valiant underdog trying to defend the rights of Iraqi's to establish a sovereign state, they're an imperialist theocratic fascist state intent on establishing their own hegemonic control of the region, while killing as many Sunnis as possible. They want to do with Iraq what they've already done in Lebanon, install their own puppet government (who they'll bump off, like they did with Hariri, if they refuse to play ball). The video is naive and ignorant bullshit.

There are no good guys and bad guys in this situation, just bad guys, worse guys, even worse guys and innocent bystanders.

Edited by caze
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m posting yet another PBS piece.

“Our Man In Tehran” is a good look at Iran from inside. Even has an interview with that one guy who is famous for yelling death to America more passionately than anyone else.

 

Part 1.

 

https://www.pbs.org/video/our-man-in-tehran-part-one-p9eu3w/

 

Part 2.

 

 

https://www.pbs.org/video/our-man-in-tehran-part-two-7elm5x/

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, caze said:

There are no good guys and bad guys in this situation, just bad guys, worse guys, even worse guys and innocent bystanders.

dis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2020 at 12:52 PM, zero said:

I know it certainly seems like this act was just another rash, impromptu, thoughtless decision from the man child, but surely there must be some adults left in the room with him, right? I mean someone put this right in front of him, and there has to be military strategy planned out for a response? I can't imagine that it came down to a round table discussion, with top generals starring over at his orange stained face, waiting for the boy king to mumble out nonsense that was interpreted as the go-ahead.

and I think pompeo said something about discussing this first with allies, but you never know since he's on team donnie...so then 100% full of shit. I did read that Nancy and the dems were left in the dark on it, which makes sense since they would have only meddled in the dictator's plan. 

This outlined what I think is one of the more plausible scenarios: the military commanders presented Trump a number of options they were all ready to commit to, the most extreme being the assassination of Soleimani. Drone assassinations have become normalized and essentially standard fare since the late Bush era and was Obama's most damning and disappointing legacy. Targeting individuals is so common that the US has literally developed hellfire missile variants (usually helicopter deployed) that are armed with fucking knifes instead of explosive warheads. This particular operation reminded me of the broad daylight targeted killing of Ahmed_Yassin by the IDF. Even though the Israelis had been conducting targeted killings for decades it was a move that was unprecedented in the sense that it was going from targeted killings of militants and alleged terrorist operatives and moving into the territory of killing political adversaries and leaders. 

Trump's motivation beyond his usual delusional absurdities was to get back at the Shia backed protests that managed to humiliate the US by breaking into the Green Zone in Baghdad. The more extreme option short of actual fucking war (preemptive strikes and direct action on the ground by the US and regional allies) would be a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz which would absolutely crippled Iran and create substantial ripples in the global market, stuff on the level of the 70s oil embargo shortages. That's the one last option the Pentagon is keeping away from Trump at the moment.

 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joshuatxuk said:
Trump's motivation beyond his usual delusional absurdities was to get back at the Shia backed protests that managed to humiliate the US by breaking into the Green Zone in Baghdad. 
 

yeah, this makes a lot more sense than the BS his administration keeps spouting that he acted due to legitimate targeted threats against the US. he was probably watching fox news and saw images of those evil brown skinned muslims trying to get into the almighty AMERICAN embassy in Baghdad, which led to his counter reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zero said:

yeah, this makes a lot more sense than the BS his administration keeps spouting that he acted due to legitimate targeted threats against the US. he was probably watching fox news and saw images of those evil brown skinned muslims trying to get into the almighty AMERICAN embassy in Baghdad, which led to his counter reaction.

Something I forgot to stress about the theory that podcast mentioned is that the top brass are using their claim that "Trump picked the most extreme option" is actually a rouse to excuse a move the US military and State Department wanted to do. Soleimani was literally on a diplomatic visit with Iraq to de-escalate Shia-Sunni tensions. We exploited a country we spend billions on to prop up for strategic reasons yet treat poorly as an ally. The US literally deceived the Iraq government to obtain intel about Soleimani's movements to setup an ambush. 

US military and foreign policymakers are OBSESSED with Iran, they've been a de facto adversary for 40 years despite substantial potential for cooperation in against the Taliban and Al-Queda in 2001 after 9/11 and against ISIS in Syria, something that Soleimani was instrumental in militarily. We've literally been hellbent on punishing their government and population for their refusal to cooperate with us economically and strategically and as revenge for ousting a Democratic secular government in the 1950s and installing a monarch on behest of British Petroleum and anti-communist policymakers. The Iranian government has it's faults but it's less backward than Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States in terms of cultural oppression. Anti-Israeli sentiment there exists as an accessory to their anti-Imperialist, anti-Saudi, and anti-American ideologies and yet that has been weaponized here and in Europe as a argument that they are extremely anti-Semitic. 

Iran and it's proxy forces have never actually committed explicit terrorist attacks on American or Western civilians. They've only killed US military personnel - themselves foreign proxy fighters in Iraq - in the context or armed conflict. Iran's biggest enemies are  the same ultra-orthodox Sunni Islamist terrorist groups that attack the U.S. and it's allied interests. Despite all of the literally every major US news outlet and mainstream pundit will nonetheless reiterate this arbitrary and false idea that Iran is a major terrorist supporter. It's been echoed for so long that even well-educated people start to believe it by default. I literally had to ask myself last year "has Iran actually committed terrorist attacks overseas?" because I assumed they had. 

One would assume we would not go into a full-on ground war with Iran because we'll lose. Yet as I type this the U.S. is still spending trillions yearly to maintain endless conflicts and operations in countries where we've lost wars. We've normalized endless wars. We've normalized the U.S. as a imperial state without even the pretense of a global ideologically struggle that the Cold War presented, now it's literally about keeping oil tankers and pipelines safe and the cash flow of wealthy elites moving. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Epstein...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Seen the Joe Rogan bit? Nice pictures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, goDel said:

Yeah. Seen the Joe Rogan bit? Nice pictures...

Yup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ignatius said:

the party of "Mysterious Ways"

Quote

The phrase “God works in mysterious ways” is not found in the Bible. It’s apparently taken from a Christian hymn text written in 1773 by William Cowper called “God Moves in a Mysterious Way.” Regardless of the phrase’s origins and its veracity, one thing should be pretty clear: A god who would anoint someone with the morals of Trump to be his representative isn’t just “mysterious.” It is offensive to believers and non-believers alike.

https://www.au.org/church-state/june-2019-church-state-magazine/editorial/god-and-trump-the-offensive-notion-of-divine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

 This particular operation reminded me of the broad daylight targeted killing of Ahmed_Yassin by the IDF. Even though the Israelis had been conducting targeted killings for decades it was a move that was unprecedented in the sense that it was going from targeted killings of militants and alleged terrorist operatives and moving into the territory of killing political adversaries and leaders. 

Yassin was a founder and leader of Hamas, which is a terrorist paramilitary organisation, he's not just some civilian politician. He was a guy who advocated for, and was involved in, the murder of innocent civilians. That knife bomb is pretty cool, better than killing loads of innocent bystanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, caze said:

Yassin was a founder and leader of Hamas, which is a terrorist paramilitary organisation, he's not just some civilian politician. He was a guy who advocated for, and was involved in, the murder of innocent civilians. That knife bomb is pretty cool, better than killing loads of innocent bystanders.

Do you think having killed him will lead to more or to less deaths of innocent civilians and/or soldiers (that often didn't chose their fate either)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It’s not really relevant where the saying comes from. Just making the point about these evangelical turds. They all want an apocalypse to bring on the 2nd coming or whatever they have a hard on for. It’s same as the “imperfect vessel” narrative.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ignatius said:

the party of "Mysterious Ways"

oh ffs, now that U2 song is stuck in my head ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pretend it's the KMFDM version.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

The Iranian government has it's faults but it's less backward than Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States in terms of cultural oppression.

"has it's faults" lol, that's putting it mildly. Not being as culturally repressive as the Saudis isn't saying much. Soleimani was recently responsible for the murder of many hundreds of Iranian civilian protesters, many whom were killed by snipers, many more were arrested, tortured and murdered. His militias have been responsible for the same in Iraq and Lebanon in recent months too. Even the Saudis aren't that brutal when it comes to repressing civilian discontent (though this is probably more down to the fact that there's far less of it to repress, because Iran has a much more developed internal opposition).

3 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

Anti-Israeli sentiment there exists as an accessory to their anti-Imperialist, anti-Saudi, and anti-American ideologies and yet that has been weaponized here and in Europe as a argument that they are extremely anti-Semitic. 

The Iranian regime are not anti-imperialist, they are imperialists. They are fundamentally and virulently anti-semitic, it's part of their core Islamist principles.

3 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

Iran and it's proxy forces have never actually committed explicit terrorist attacks on American or Western civilians. They've only killed US military personnel - themselves foreign proxy fighters in Iraq - in the context or armed conflict. Iran's biggest enemies are  the same ultra-orthodox Sunni Islamist terrorist groups that attack the U.S. and it's allied interests. Despite all of the literally every major US news outlet and mainstream pundit will nonetheless reiterate this arbitrary and false idea that Iran is a major terrorist supporter. It's been echoed for so long that even well-educated people start to believe it by default. I literally had to ask myself last year "has Iran actually committed terrorist attacks overseas?" because I assumed they had. 

This is complete nonsense. Iran is a major terrorist supporter, just because the victims of it's terrorism are predominantly other Muslims and Israelis and not westerners doesn't make it ok, the people who live in the middle east are people too. This page lists many of the overseas terrorist attacks and foiled plots (several of which were in European countries) orchestrated by Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

 

3 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

One would assume we would not go into a full-on ground war with Iran because we'll lose. Yet as I type this the U.S. is still spending trillions yearly to maintain endless conflicts and operations in countries where we've lost wars. We've normalized endless wars. We've normalized the U.S. as a imperial state without even the pretense of a global ideologically struggle that the Cold War presented, now it's literally about keeping oil tankers and pipelines safe and the cash flow of wealthy elites moving. 

this is a childishly naive view of the world. The US isn't still involved in the region to maintain conflict, it's there to prevent it's spread. Do you remember what happened the last time the US pulled out of Iraq? ISIS took over half the country. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of taking out Saddam in the first place (which of course the Shia and Iranians were also in favour of), once they did they had a responsibility to the region to stick around and help fix the mess they made. It's not the US's fault the region is filled with numerous violent fascist groups of various stripes, which prevented the stabilisation of the country. The main reason they are still there was to fight ISIS and to train and equip the Iraqi army, this will now come to an end, probably with negative results for most Iraqis. 

Oil is not the reason behind any of this, the US does not rely of the region's oil as it's one of the world's biggest oil exporters itself (and they only have about 15% of Iraq's output tied to US companies in the most recent contracts, Russian companies have about the same, the UK a bit more; Iraq keeps 25% of everything produced, plus the taxes on all profits). There is a sense in which it's important to the US and the global economy to keep Iraqi oil production going, this isn't to line the pockets of elites though, it's important to everyone and especially important to the Iraqis as it funds their economic development. Even after the US military leaves Iraq a whole host of countries, including from the US, will continue to be awarded contracts for developing oil fields and building out processing infrastructure, this is essential for Iraq because they're at capacity and require significant infrastructure development (especially when it comes to gas), something they don't have the know how or the funds to do themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran oks bill declaring US military and Pentagon terrorist organizations:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-oks-bill-calling-u-092922901.html

Iran threatening to attack Trump properties worldwide

Trump threatening to attack Iranian cultural sites

American civilians worldwide are now a target

Attacks within Saudi Arabia likely

Cyber attacks possible on both sides

No one thought this out, or how quickly it could escalate

Paul Gosar is a fucking moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, darreichungsform said:

Do you think having killed him will lead to more or to less deaths of innocent civilians and/or soldiers (that often didn't chose their fate either)?

I doubt his killing made much difference in terms of increasing or decreasing attacks, the people involved would have found other justifications for their attacks regardless. Not that I'm condoning it, eventually you have to draw a line in the sand and reach a settlement with these people, the only problem is this guy was against the idea of peace from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news, guys. Ivanka Trump is set to do a presentation at CES. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Facepalm 1
  • Farnsworth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a godawful shitty mess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...