Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

What has Trump done right so far?

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:27 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

CRC wrote:Do you know what the definition of "Kludge" is?


Yes, but i´m not sure if you do.

CRC wrote:I am just reading your references and specifically Chart 14 which shows an explosive in the nose and what looks like an impact fuze.


And after looking through all the links, there´s not a single place referring itself as "Chart 14".
The closest i get is the pdf about the 2013 Damascus incident. Where it´s the original pagenumber, showing an artillery rocket.
Which has little to nothing to do with the recent incident as it did not use an artillery rocket, but possibly was made from the kind of pipe such are made from.

Yes there´s a picture of an artillery rocket in the Idlib article as well, but it is there for comparison, you need to read the text for the pictures.

CRC wrote:I also watched video of these things being launched (the 330mm variant). So my reference to a kludge might be a bit harsh, but your claim it is not a warhead is pure ignorance.


:roll:

Look at the damn pics. It´s a plain PIPE, it´s NOT a warhead.
The 2013 pics shows a warhead, please NOTICE THE DIFFERENCES.

CRC wrote:Very likely and definitive are two different things.


It is very likely that there will be a sunrise tomorrow, but it´s not definitive or guaranteed. Yes, it is two different things, but when you´re looking at probabilities beyond 99%, my statement is due to wanting to stay correct, as i dislike speaking in absolutes when there isn´t such a thing.

CRC wrote:I still find the premise, primarily derived from a simple derivative of Occam's Razor, to be that the Syrian government was the source of the 2013 attack.


It´s possible. But it also means one of the shrewdest political players in the region made a blunder on the level Trump squared.
Possible sure, likely, no not even close.

Assad´s regime has nothing to gain and everything to lose from using chemical weapons. Even more so, the two attacks does not actually gain the regime ANYTHING even remotely worthwhile.

So, your assumption is that Assad ordered or said "ok" to an attack that is political suicide without providing any kind of benefit?

He´s not a nice person, but he´s also not an idiot.

CRC wrote:If it is fake. I still find the overall argument and the evidence persuasive. Once can nitpick some of the 'facts' and throw additional rocks at several points, but then some of the 'evidence' for Sasquatches and UFO's can be pretty compelling taken on their own.


Oh it´s fake. It´s not established yet exactly what the reality is, but the claimed event does not work.

Did you check the "evidence" of the locals "investigating" the site? It´s on youtube, yeah i know, it´s just amazing how quickly such "evidence" can spread.

1. Syrian health officials obviously always have their gear marked in English, right? :roll:
2. And they walk around in an area contaminated by dangerous chemicals with not even gloves, because touching the remains of Sarin is completely harmless right? :?
3. Using facemasks that provide absolutely zero protection against chemicals, and one of the variants used is in fact an absolute deathtrap if there was even the slightest remains of Sarin on the site. :shock:

Based on the claims of the attack and when the supposed "investigators" are there, they should all be severely ill or dead before the end of the day.

CRC wrote:Ahh. Took me a while. US global domination. (LOL!!!!) Wholly crap. Where did that come from? I thought that BS died with Khrushchev.


Sadly it appears to have become a fad among certain parts of the USA.

CRC wrote:Considering actual Russian history, keeping it surrounded by a zone of "percolating violence" is not too difficult to do since the internal "percolating violence" is almost self sustaining.


Yes, because Chechnya, Ukraine and Afghanistan happened without aaanyone else being involved... :roll:

CRC wrote:But actually not a bad idea as part of an overall containment strategy. Serves as sort of a counter-counter to the internal revolutionary hotspot misdirection strategy doesn't it?


I wonder how many seconds it would take for USA to scream WAR!!! if it was them it happened to? Because it is warfare. Just of the cowardly kind. One step below terrorism and carpetbombing cities you know?

Iraq used to be the most developed and modern nation in the middle east, up until when they split from their good old friends in the USA.

Libya was the by far the most developed nation in N.Africa, now it´s a place where actual slavery has made a return. After its destruction by USA.

Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Georgia are others that have the same common denominator.
USA got involved, and suddenly they are more or less shattered, become dictatures or turned into extremeist nations.

With false flag operations very likely involved in all of them.
It´s quite disgusting.
Maybe USA needs to be properly "glassed".
As so many yanks loudly demanded about Iraq in 2003. Based on fake evidence with so poor quality even amateurs could find mistakes in minutes.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:53 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:45 am

Tenshinai wrote:
Yes, but i´m not sure if you do.


Anyone launching something so flat faced on the front of a rocket and hoping for anything but the ballistics of a rock is definitely a "kludge". I was expecting duct tape. :lol:

Tenshinai wrote: And after looking through all the links, there´s not a single place referring itself as "Chart 14".
The closest i get is the pdf about the 2013 Damascus incident. Where it´s the original pagenumber, showing an artillery rocket.
Which has little to nothing to do with the recent incident as it did not use an artillery rocket, but possibly was made from the kind of pipe such are made from.

Yes there´s a picture of an artillery rocket in the Idlib article as well, but it is there for comparison, you need to read the text for the pictures.


The pages of the

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/poss ... igence.pdf

link are obviously powerpoint briefing slides. Going to # 14 you see the drawing of the 'warhead', which matches the video of the firing exercises from the Syrian army. The 'warhead' is also pictured on #19, #21, #23 and #24. You keep calling it a pipe yet this particular reference, one of yours I believe, calls it a warhead.

Tenshinai wrote:
Look at the damn pics. It´s a plain PIPE, it´s NOT a warhead.
The 2013 pics shows a warhead, please NOTICE THE DIFFERENCES.


See above. I do not understand the issue here. I am using a source that supports your version of the faulty intelligence, but you seem to be arguing with the source, not with me. I am just stating what is shown in the charts.

Tenshinai wrote:
It is very likely that there will be a sunrise tomorrow, but it´s not definitive or guaranteed. Yes, it is two different things, but when you´re looking at probabilities beyond 99%, my statement is due to wanting to stay correct, as i dislike speaking in absolutes when there isn´t such a thing.


I can actually agree with this to certain extent.

Tenshinai wrote:
It´s possible. But it also means one of the shrewdest political players in the region made a blunder on the level Trump squared.
Possible sure, likely, no not even close.

Assad´s regime has nothing to gain and everything to lose from using chemical weapons. Even more so, the two attacks does not actually gain the regime ANYTHING even remotely worthwhile.

So, your assumption is that Assad ordered or said "ok" to an attack that is political suicide without providing any kind of benefit?

He´s not a nice person, but he´s also not an idiot.


His position is guaranteed by the Russians. I believe he ordered it because he thought he could get away with it and could make a point to the opposition.

Tenshinai wrote:Oh it´s fake. It´s not established yet exactly what the reality is, but the claimed event does not work.

Did you check the "evidence" of the locals "investigating" the site? It´s on youtube, yeah i know, it´s just amazing how quickly such "evidence" can spread.

1. Syrian health officials obviously always have their gear marked in English, right? :roll:
2. And they walk around in an area contaminated by dangerous chemicals with not even gloves, because touching the remains of Sarin is completely harmless right? :?
3. Using facemasks that provide absolutely zero protection against chemicals, and one of the variants used is in fact an absolute deathtrap if there was even the slightest remains of Sarin on the site. :shock:

Based on the claims of the attack and when the supposed "investigators" are there, they should all be severely ill or dead before the end of the day.


See now you're being definitive again. So the whole incident is fake? In either incident? Sarin did not exist? The deaths were not of Sarin? That's not what the UN or HRW reported.

I thought you were only questioning the source of the attack based on the analysis that hypothesized the source of the rockets could NOT come from 8-10km away, but from only 2-3km away, thus pointing the finger at the rebels doing it to themselves - either by rockets or by ground detonation.

I must admit I have lost the thrust of your argument.

Tenshinai wrote:
Sadly it appears to have become a fad among certain parts of the USA.


The Deep State perhaps?


Tenshinai wrote:
Yes, because Chechnya, Ukraine and Afghanistan happened without aaanyone else being involved... :roll:


Well, let's look at this from 30,000 feet. Back in the USSR days, issues with Chechnya and Ukraine were internal conflicts, not an external issue. Back in the day Afghanistan, if I remember correctly, was a USSR self inflicted wound. ;)

Now fast forward to the post Warsaw Pact breakup and we have a lot of the internal issues now transitioning to external issues. And yes, many of those issues were aided and encouraged by US and EU foreign policy. As expected.

Tenshinai wrote:
I wonder how many seconds it would take for USA to scream WAR!!! if it was them it happened to? Because it is warfare. Just of the cowardly kind. One step below terrorism and carpetbombing cities you know?


Of course its warfare. Been going on for centuries. And it did happen to 'us'. Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea.

What keeps both sides from screaming war is still MAD.

Tenshinai wrote:

Iraq used to be the most developed and modern nation in the middle east, up until when they split from their good old friends in the USA.


You mean when they kicked the Shah out?

Tenshinai wrote:
Libya was the by far the most developed nation in N.Africa, now it´s a place where actual slavery has made a return. After its destruction by USA.

Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Georgia are others that have the same common denominator.
USA got involved, and suddenly they are more or less shattered, become dictatures or turned into extremeist nations.


Some of these I would place at the feet of the good old USSR as well. Although some are actually the fault of the British Empire and the fall of that Empire if you go back far enough.

Boy we are such a bad people. Its called warts. All have it. The question is does the warts outweigh the good. Universal right and wrong is so hard to come by...

Tenshinai wrote:
With false flag operations very likely involved in all of them.
It´s quite disgusting.
Maybe USA needs to be properly "glassed".
As so many yanks loudly demanded about Iraq in 2003. Based on fake evidence with so poor quality even amateurs could find mistakes in minutes.


Maybe so, hindsight is so 20/15.

FYI - glassing involves nukes and I never heard anyone wanting to "glass" Iraq in 2003. "Glass" ISIS in 2016 - yes - but not 'glass' Iraq in 2003.

Glass the US? If the US disappeared tomorrow, the world would devolve into complete and utter chaos. WWIII, nuclear winter, mass extinctions, hundreds of years of death and destruction would result. The only question is who would emerge at the end as the sole remaining world power - China or Islam. History favors China, but only because China's history pre-dates Islam. Based on current SciFi projections, I would actually bet on Islam essentially taking over the world. And that might happen regardless of the fate of the US.

There is always a legitimate argument to be made in favor of life vs death. Like getting along with Nazi's because your only other choice is 'unpleasant' or 'counterproductive', or the infamous 'better red than dead' slogan of the 70's - although the Russian purges made this more like 'dead by starvation or dead by gunshot'. And today there is always the convert or die choice as well.

In researching 'false flag' operations on-line, I find it interesting to see the 'definition' of 'proven' false flags change with every incident and go from a documented false flag event to an alleged event, but still counted as proven. Its all in the eyes of the beholder I guess. If you are looking for a reason to hate or to condemn based on personal prejudices, you can find it easily.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:03 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

CRC wrote:FYI - glassing involves nukes and I never heard anyone wanting to "glass" Iraq in 2003.


Seriously? It was all over at least 3/4 of the forums i frequented at the time, literally thousands of americans howling about it, completely rabid.

CRC wrote:"Glass" ISIS in 2016 - yes - but not 'glass' Iraq in 2003.


Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, there was pretty much no end to the demands at the time.
The talk in that direction in 2016 have been barely visible in comparison.

CRC wrote:Glass the US? If the US disappeared tomorrow, the world would devolve into complete and utter chaos. WWIII, nuclear winter, mass extinctions, hundreds of years of death and destruction would result.


Common sense or decency hasn´t stopped USA in how they deal with other countries, why should the reverse be different?

CRC wrote:The only question is who would emerge at the end as the sole remaining world power - China or Islam. History favors China, but only because China's history pre-dates Islam. Based on current SciFi projections, I would actually bet on Islam essentially taking over the world.


Really? :P

Can´t say that´s a particularly bright analysis. Actually, it´s pretty darn stupid.
Saudi Arabia is about the only nation really trying to forcefeed islam to the rest of the world, and without USAs kneejerk support, well i expect it would about a week for them to end up in trouble they can´t handle on their own.

It also completely ignores that there´s about 5 different branches of islam. Most of them opposing at least one or two of the others.

And the fact that there´s a BIG chunk of hardcore secular people around today, Northern Europe and Japan most notably, but also quite a bunch of semisecular moslems that have no interest in the radicals and fanatics taking over.

And then there´s India, which you just left out for some reason. 2nd biggest population in the world.

I could go on, but really, that´s conspiracy theory level.

CRC wrote:There is always a legitimate argument to be made in favor of life vs death. Like getting along with Nazi's because your only other choice is 'unpleasant' or 'counterproductive', or the infamous 'better red than dead' slogan of the 70's - although the Russian purges made this more like 'dead by starvation or dead by gunshot'. And today there is always the convert or die choice as well.


Russian purges? Which ones would that be? In Tsarist-Russia before 1917 or current Russia after 1991?

And you might want to recall, as i noted in an earlier thread on this forum, that Russian leaders of USSR is actually in minority.

You might also want to remember that just about any real bad events of USSR have been massively exaggerated during cold war propaganda.

Oh and i believe the more popular version was "Better dead than red".

CRC wrote:In researching 'false flag' operations on-line, I find it interesting to see the 'definition' of 'proven' false flags change with every incident and go from a documented false flag event to an alleged event, but still counted as proven. Its all in the eyes of the beholder I guess. If you are looking for a reason to hate or to condemn based on personal prejudices, you can find it easily.


:roll:

The recent chemical weapons attack, if it happened ( even that has still not been reliably confirmed ) is a pretty good example.
Fact, it did NOT happen as claimed.
Fact, USA instantly used it as an excuse to strike at it´s preferred target.
Fact, at least 2 groups supported by USA, in the area, are KNOWN to have the chemical claimed to have been used.
Fact, the report used as basis for the attack has been completely torn apart as incompetent and amateurish, as well as for not having been run by even the most basic of factcheck before being dropped into the white house.

No, that´s not proven, but it´s pretty obvious who tried to gain from it, who had a suitably spiced up report ready and waiting, and who has the influence over the groups in the area.

More importantly however, is that we have a long since established pattern for these events. You can see the same pattern in the Tonkin gulf incident, in the Georgians starting their personal short victorious war 2008, in the Bay of pigs "event", in the overthrow of the Argentine duly elected government, in starting the war in Afghanistan in the 70s, in Jugoslavia in the 90s, in the Spanish-american war(where someone once joked that 99% of the battles only ever happened in US propaganda), in the shattering of the Libyan state, hell, it starts as early as the hostile coup and following annexation of Hawaii.

Guess someone figured "it worked then, no reason it wont work again".

CRC wrote:Boy we are such a bad people. Its called warts. All have it. The question is does the warts outweigh the good. Universal right and wrong is so hard to come by...


Actually no. The problem is, that when people in USA talks about "nations have no friends, only interests", too many mean it LITERALLY.

When did i ever say you´re a bad people?

The people is only the problem as far as how astoundingly ignorant and passive it is.
"My country right or wrong" is considered a good ideal.

CRC wrote:Some of these I would place at the feet of the good old USSR as well. Although some are actually the fault of the British Empire and the fall of that Empire if you go back far enough.


Really... :mrgreen:

Why don´t you try looking at some photos from Afghanistan before the 70s? Before they got a too leftwing government in the countercoup that USA felt HAD to be destroyed?
USSR was buddies with Afghanistan then, helped them build a crapload of infrastructure among other things.
That´s also why USSR reluctantly agreed to send troops into Afghanistan, when the government asked for it.
Because CIA-sponsored religious fanatics were threatening the nation.

And since those idiots needed someplace to train people, Pakistan ended up with a crapload of "religious schools", filled to the brim with extremeists which made sure Pakistan today is a shithole of religious fanaticism.

Iran... Where USA was total buddy-buddies with the Shah, who was a racist that Hitler would have absolutely loved.
But he had horrible problems with rebels and opposition, oh dear. So USA supported him.
And oh wooops, the democratic opposition just happened to get killed off because they were too open.
Which just left the religiously based opposition and rebels, which BTW were getting support from CIA as they just happened to be some of the same people in Afghanistan and Pakistan that were supposed to fight USSR.

Vietnam was kinda similar, except there USA had a lot of interests in the local plantations, and of course in keeping the local US friendly dictator alive despite opposition that had already got the French to leave.
But there, the ones that survived were instead the communist rebels, because they were the only ones organised enough and with any kind of support.
Cue ridiculous amounts of bombs and chemical weapons used. Chemical weapons that is still a MAJOR problem today. Estimations and records vary, but probably up to 5% of Vietnamese today have chronic health problems due to just the chemical weapons used by USA.


Millions of people killed or suffering.

And for what? "national interests"... :roll:

CRC wrote:You mean when they kicked the Shah out?


The shah was Iran, not Iraq.

CRC wrote:Of course its warfare. Been going on for centuries. And it did happen to 'us'. Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea.


Wow, you really have to make sure to properly chastise all those horribly incompetent people making geography textbooks and maps and everything then! I never knew that USA bordered all those countries! Amazing.

Are you so deeply mired into a colonialist imperialist mindset that you think THAT is the same? That´s just pathetic.

If USSR had started civil wars in Mexico and Canada, aimed at USA, you would have had a point.

CRC wrote:Back in the day Afghanistan, if I remember correctly, was a USSR self inflicted wound. ;)


If you actually believe that, you are horribly ignorant.

Read about the nation under Zahir Shah. It was doing reasonably well, and wasn´t too badly off. He was mostly moderate and tried to be friendly with the neighbors.

Then the coup in -73 which brought the first republic of Afghanistan and president Daoud, who went for militarism and strong ties with Saudis. Which, along with the CIA-sponsored "experts" was a large part of the reason for the leftwing/communist/socialist countercoup of -78.
At which point USA pushed its covert efforts up to eleven and started trashing the place.

Then, in 2004, when the majority of Afghans wants Zahir back as king, USA forces him to reject that idea because their own golden boy Karzai just had to be "elected". :roll:

CRC wrote:Well, let's look at this from 30,000 feet. Back in the USSR days, issues with Chechnya and Ukraine were internal conflicts, not an external issue.


I wasn´t referring to those. Russia as a nation didn´t exist then. Only amateurs make the mistake of thinking USSR and Russia is the same.

CRC wrote:See now you're being definitive again. So the whole incident is fake? In either incident? Sarin did not exist? The deaths were not of Sarin? That's not what the UN or HRW reported.


Except so far, it´s not UN or HRW actually reporting anything of actual value. It´s locals. Locals with extremely questionable circumstances and statements.

CRC wrote:I thought you were only questioning the source of the attack based on the analysis that hypothesized the source of the rockets could NOT come from 8-10km away, but from only 2-3km away, thus pointing the finger at the rebels doing it to themselves - either by rockets or by ground detonation.

I must admit I have lost the thrust of your argument.


That´s because you insist on mixing up 2017 with 2013. The Idlib attack was specified as having been a BOMB dropped by a SYRIAN aircraft.

CRC wrote:His position is guaranteed by the Russians. I believe he ordered it because he thought he could get away with it and could make a point to the opposition.


...

Are you a zombie?

Because if you really believe that, you really could do with the kliché zombie statement.

CRC wrote:link are obviously powerpoint briefing slides. Going to # 14 you see the drawing of the 'warhead', which matches the video of the firing exercises from the Syrian army. The 'warhead' is also pictured on #19, #21, #23 and #24. You keep calling it a pipe yet this particular reference, one of yours I believe, calls it a warhead.


Text there is "GRAD Artillery Rocket NYT September 5, 2013".

Do tell exactly what relevance that has with Idlib 2017?

It also shows a drastically different impact point.

Not to mention you have to be blind to think any of those pictures looks anything like the pipe used in the Idlib attack.

CRC wrote:Anyone launching something so flat faced on the front of a rocket and hoping for anything but the ballistics of a rock is definitely a "kludge". I was expecting duct tape.


And that might have been funny if it was actually a relevant or true statement.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:36 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:45 am

Tenshinai wrote: Seriously? It was all over at least 3/4 of the forums i frequented at the time, literally thousands of americans howling about it, completely rabid.


Oh. I see you have widened the search terms to be anyone said, anywhere...in that case you are probably correct.

Must be nice to have the spare time to frequent so many weird forums.


Tenshinai wrote: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, there was pretty much no end to the demands at the time.
The talk in that direction in 2016 have been barely visible in comparison.


See above. Once you widen the search terms to include the entire world, I'm sure you can find a quote to support your position from someone. I thought you were talking about people with influence and/or power. Talking heads, politicians, etc.


Tenshinai wrote: Common sense or decency hasn´t stopped USA in how they deal with other countries, why should the reverse be different?


That's a non-sequitur. So you would have preferred a modern day Nazi empire with nukes, or a Russian empire with nukes. (I know - rhetorical question.)

Tenshinai wrote:

Really? :P

Can´t say that´s a particularly bright analysis. Actually, it´s pretty darn stupid.
Saudi Arabia is about the only nation really trying to forcefeed islam to the rest of the world, and without USAs kneejerk support, well i expect it would about a week for them to end up in trouble they can´t handle on their own.

It also completely ignores that there´s about 5 different branches of islam. Most of them opposing at least one or two of the others.

And the fact that there´s a BIG chunk of hardcore secular people around today, Northern Europe and Japan most notably, but also quite a bunch of semisecular moslems that have no interest in the radicals and fanatics taking over.

And then there´s India, which you just left out for some reason. 2nd biggest population in the world.

I could go on, but really, that´s conspiracy theory level.


Wow you really are off in the deep end. I offer up an interesting POV and you just go right off on it. I am looking at it from historical perspectives and trends.

So looking at the map, you simply ignore Islam as a major political, economic and military force in the world. As one commentator said a couple of years ago, they have the self contained religious, economic and political philosophy - and most importantly the birth rate - to dominate any of the Western powers - individually or collectively. Yes there are different branches and subdivisions within each branch, and yes they oppose one another - in certain cases - but their opponents, the "West", help focus their current strategy.

Northern Europe would go the same way as in WWII, but would suffer the consequences of appeasement with a US presence.

I refer to the SCI-FI community because there speculative fiction exploring future alternative abounds. The "Islam" problem is addressed in a large number of current SCI-FI novels, all with interesting discussions.


Tenshinai wrote:

Russian purges? Which ones would that be? In Tsarist-Russia before 1917 or current Russia after 1991?

And you might want to recall, as i noted in an earlier thread on this forum, that Russian leaders of USSR is actually in minority.

You might also want to remember that just about any real bad events of USSR have been massively exaggerated during cold war propaganda.

Oh and i believe the more popular version was "Better dead than red".


I was using "Russian" as a generic term encompassing pre-USSR, USSR, post-USSR including the Tsars, Lenin, Stalin - up to an including Putin.

Having grown up in the 60's and 70's while the phrase "better dead than red" was in use, the opposite was also in use somewhere, by someone, which fits your criteria.

Tenshinai wrote:

:roll:

The recent chemical weapons attack, if it happened ( even that has still not been reliably confirmed ) is a pretty good example.
Fact, it did NOT happen as claimed.
Fact, USA instantly used it as an excuse to strike at it´s preferred target.
Fact, at least 2 groups supported by USA, in the area, are KNOWN to have the chemical claimed to have been used.
Fact, the report used as basis for the attack has been completely torn apart as incompetent and amateurish, as well as for not having been run by even the most basic of factcheck before being dropped into the white house.

No, that´s not proven, but it´s pretty obvious who tried to gain from it, who had a suitably spiced up report ready and waiting, and who has the influence over the groups in the area.

More importantly however, is that we have a long since established pattern for these events. You can see the same pattern in the Tonkin gulf incident, in the Georgians starting their personal short victorious war 2008, in the Bay of pigs "event", in the overthrow of the Argentine duly elected government, in starting the war in Afghanistan in the 70s, in Jugoslavia in the 90s, in the Spanish-american war(where someone once joked that 99% of the battles only ever happened in US propaganda), in the shattering of the Libyan state, hell, it starts as early as the hostile coup and following annexation of Hawaii.

Guess someone figured "it worked then, no reason it wont work again".


Roll out the conspiracy theories and blather with BS. Wish I could do the same thing, but my conscience does not allow it. Let's see, where to start.

First of all I am looking in detail at the 2013 attack because it has the best published analyses. The more recent attack does not. You claim it did not happen as claimed. Your point is not proven by any independent, competent analysis that you have presented. I have yet to see any reasonable analyses that supports your position. Only speculation, supposition and hopeful guesswork.

Yes and I am sure that the US was ultimately responsible for the Soviet shipment of arms in support of Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Irag, Syria, Libya, Egypt.

Must be nice being able to blame all of socialisms problems on a single boogey man


Tenshinai wrote:

Actually no. The problem is, that when people in USA talks about "nations have no friends, only interests", too many mean it LITERALLY.

When did i ever say you´re a bad people?

The people is only the problem as far as how astoundingly ignorant and passive it is.
"My country right or wrong" is considered a good ideal.


I said it, taking your implications at their face value. We elected Trump, the actual subject of this thread. If Trump is bad, then his election was bad and the people that voted for him were bad. Right?

Nations do not have friends, only interests. (And those interests change quite often actually.) That's been true forever, just substitute tribes, families, neighborhoods, cities, etc. for nations. Political/familial organizations are supposed to be self serving. People or non-governmental organizations within the nation state may have friends, but nations should be interest focused.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

Nothing about "friends" in there...

I would have to dispute the "my country right or wrong" ideal. Too many example of how that leads to the death of millions. Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, China, North Korea...



Tenshinai wrote:

Really... :mrgreen:

Why don´t you try looking at some photos from Afghanistan before the 70s? Before they got a too leftwing government in the countercoup that USA felt HAD to be destroyed?
USSR was buddies with Afghanistan then, helped them build a crapload of infrastructure among other things.
That´s also why USSR reluctantly agreed to send troops into Afghanistan, when the government asked for it.
Because CIA-sponsored religious fanatics were threatening the nation.

And since those idiots needed someplace to train people, Pakistan ended up with a crapload of "religious schools", filled to the brim with extremeists which made sure Pakistan today is a shithole of religious fanaticism.

Iran... Where USA was total buddy-buddies with the Shah, who was a racist that Hitler would have absolutely loved.
But he had horrible problems with rebels and opposition, oh dear. So USA supported him.
And oh wooops, the democratic opposition just happened to get killed off because they were too open.
Which just left the religiously based opposition and rebels, which BTW were getting support from CIA as they just happened to be some of the same people in Afghanistan and Pakistan that were supposed to fight USSR.

Vietnam was kinda similar, except there USA had a lot of interests in the local plantations, and of course in keeping the local US friendly dictator alive despite opposition that had already got the French to leave.
But there, the ones that survived were instead the communist rebels, because they were the only ones organised enough and with any kind of support.
Cue ridiculous amounts of bombs and chemical weapons used. Chemical weapons that is still a MAJOR problem today. Estimations and records vary, but probably up to 5% of Vietnamese today have chronic health problems due to just the chemical weapons used by USA.

Millions of people killed or suffering.

And for what? "national interests"... :roll:


Yep. Millions killed for just being alive in the aforementioned countries. Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, Germany. Doesn't count the millions of 're-education' graduates either. Interesting how most of socialism requires such 'camps' or 'centers of excellence', or bullets in the back of the head or simple gassing.

Tenshinai wrote: The shah was Iran, not Iraq.


Yes, you are correct. My error. Don't have time to research pre-Saddam Iraq right now, but I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Tenshinai wrote:

Wow, you really have to make sure to properly chastise all those horribly incompetent people making geography textbooks and maps and everything then! I never knew that USA bordered all those countries! Amazing.

Are you so deeply mired into a colonialist imperialist mindset that you think THAT is the same? That´s just pathetic.

If USSR had started civil wars in Mexico and Canada, aimed at USA, you would have had a point.


No, just following the examples set by the good old USSR/Russia. If they can worry their imperial holdings in Cuba, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., why can't we be worried about their imperialistic expansions into our area.


Tenshinai wrote:

If you actually believe that, you are horribly ignorant.

Read about the nation under Zahir Shah. It was doing reasonably well, and wasn´t too badly off. He was mostly moderate and tried to be friendly with the neighbors.

Then the coup in -73 which brought the first republic of Afghanistan and president Daoud, who went for militarism and strong ties with Saudis. Which, along with the CIA-sponsored "experts" was a large part of the reason for the leftwing/communist/socialist countercoup of -78.
At which point USA pushed its covert efforts up to eleven and started trashing the place.

Then, in 2004, when the majority of Afghans wants Zahir back as king, USA forces him to reject that idea because their own golden boy Karzai just had to be "elected". :roll:


So the "coup" in 73 was the fault of the US? I see you didn't talk about that, but then threw in the ever present notorious CIA link for the rationale of the imperialistic soviet sponsored countercoup of 78, which proceeded to execute or re-educate their opponents - funny how that is a recurring theme...and at the point that their about to get their own re-education the USSR steps in and sends several divisions of troops to help out the US in trashing the place....

Tenshinai wrote:

I wasn´t referring to those. Russia as a nation didn´t exist then. Only amateurs make the mistake of thinking USSR and Russia is the same.


I don't think of them as the same. Putin apparently aspires to recreate the "Russian" empire by recombolulating the old USSR.

But I was making a legitimate point. Those flashpoints existed pre-1917, post-1917, pre-USSR, post-USSR. The perspective of internal vs external depends on the time frame discussed.

Tenshinai wrote: Except so far, it´s not UN or HRW actually reporting anything of actual value. It´s locals. Locals with extremely questionable circumstances and statements.


For the 2017 attack. I was referring to the 2013 attack since it is far better documented and subject to perspective analysis.

Tenshinai wrote:

That´s because you insist on mixing up 2017 with 2013. The Idlib attack was specified as having been a BOMB dropped by a SYRIAN aircraft.


No, I am not mixing them up. I constantly refer to the 2013 attack because it has been documented better. And if the 2013 attack was performed by Assad, the 2017 attack is likely to be the same.

And as I have stated on numerous occasions, nothing prevents an aircraft from dropping any of the improvised 120mm or 330mm 'warheads'. Accuracy is not required for this type of attack.

Tenshinai wrote:
...

Are you a zombie?

Because if you really believe that, you really could do with the kliché zombie statement.


Not the last time I looked in the mirror. Maybe you should do the same...

Tenshinai wrote:

Text there is "GRAD Artillery Rocket NYT September 5, 2013".

Do tell exactly what relevance that has with Idlib 2017?

It also shows a drastically different impact point.

Not to mention you have to be blind to think any of those pictures looks anything like the pipe used in the Idlib attack.


Once again, I was discussing the 2013 attack. An attack you vociferously defend as non-Assad - very similar to your discussion of 2017. So if the 2013 attack was Assad, then the probability that the 2017 attack was Assad increases. If your preferred analysis on the 2013 attack is wrong, then the same can be inferred on the 2017 attack.

The photos of the 'warhead' that I have seen have been of the 120mm rocket version of the 'warhead' - shown on chart #21 in:

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/poss ... igence.pdf

Now I am not dismissing the possibility that the 2017 attack was non-Assad. Unlike you, I like to see firm analysis one way or the other before reaching a personal decision. Looks like we will have to wait to see.


Tenshinai wrote:

And that might have been funny if it was actually a relevant or true statement.


It was very relevant. It demonstrated my understanding of the term "kludge" with a bit of 'kludgy' humor. Besides WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST DUCT TAPE - the greatest invention since baling wire!
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Thu May 18, 2017 6:54 am

Annachie
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

He's made a new, younger generation aware of who Nelson Mandella was.

Surely that's a good thing.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by The E   » Thu May 18, 2017 8:00 am

The E
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Paderborn, Germany

Another good thing: With all his whining about being unfairly treated and prosecuted, he is providing a valuable example of the kind of person that we apply the descriptors "special snowflake" or "entitled and spoiled" to.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by biochem   » Wed May 24, 2017 8:35 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: USA

One of the few things Trump is gifted at is effectively labeling his opponents: Crooked Hillary, Low Energy Jeb, Lying Ted etc

His latest was great and actually benefits society at large rather than just Trump personally. "Evil Losers"

One commentator noted that To discourage self radicalization Google should auto-replace ISIS with "evil loser". Easier said than done, but it does speak to the power of persuasive labeling.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by gcomeau   » Wed May 24, 2017 11:10 am

gcomeau
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

biochem wrote:One of the few things Trump is gifted at is effectively labeling his opponents: Crooked Hillary, Low Energy Jeb, Lying Ted etc

His latest was great and actually benefits society at large rather than just Trump personally. "Evil Losers"

One commentator noted that To discourage self radicalization Google should auto-replace ISIS with "evil loser". Easier said than done, but it does speak to the power of persuasive labeling.


I will actually agree that minimizing and demeaning terrorists and radicals as nothing but thugs and losers rather than lifting them up as evil masterminds or something is an effective measure to take...


I would also of course point out that the odds Trump did that as some kind of thought out tactic rather than simply as a result of the limitations of his vocabulary are... rather low. "Losers" is just his go to insult for *everybody*. But I'll take it however we can get it if he actually does something useful even by accident.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Eyal   » Thu May 25, 2017 2:33 am

Eyal
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:09 pm
Location: Israel

biochem wrote:One of the few things Trump is gifted at is effectively labeling his opponents: Crooked Hillary, Low Energy Jeb, Lying Ted etc


Personally I've always thought it makes him seem juvenile, frankly.

His latest was great and actually benefits society at large rather than just Trump personally. "Evil Losers"

One commentator noted that To discourage self radicalization Google should auto-replace ISIS with "evil loser". Easier said than done, but it does speak to the power of persuasive labeling.


Problem is worldwide, that "loser" isn't the go-to insult it is in the US. I tried translating "evil losers" into Hebrew, it sounds awkward at best
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by biochem   » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:39 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: USA

The proposal to change the airtraffic control to semi-private status. The general idea is to copy Canada's system, which appears to have potential assuming the people in charge of the details (Trump is NOT a detail guy. He's big picture i.e. I want a system like Canada's or other similar systems (New Zealand, U.K., Australia, Germany etc) -> make it so) don't muck it up. Canada's system seems to work well so my personal opinion is to make the new system as much like Canada's as possible. i.e. do not reinvent the wheel.

The current US government run air traffic control system is problematic. The #1 issue is the 40 year old computers that are running the system. They've been trying without success to get new ones for the last 20 years or so. This system does not use GPS.
Top

Return to Politics