100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[V Chip]

You are not gonna talk your way out of you think the brown Muslim woman wants to bomb the state of the union.

It is racist as !

I don't think it's racist.

Ignorant and bigoted AF, but not inherently racist.

 

[Beach Friends]

I don't think it's racist.

Ignorant and bigoted AF, but not inherently racist.

Thank you!!

 

[TaylorB]

If you ever wondered why Trump is reluctant to publicly condemn terrorism by white supremacists but screams and shouts about Islamic terrorism and caravans of brown people coming to get you, just read this thread and it'll all make sense.

 

[Joe Okc]

That could be a reason you arent like a 4 star General. jussayin.

Maybe so and true... but there may be some there may be Trump hater out there building a bomb that had not thought of it either, and he just needs a place to explode it...

So are you saying her comments were ok.?

What if Trump had mentioned what if people target Nancy Pelosis' proprty? Would it still be ok in your eyes?

 

[Dadsdream]

Interestingly, things are moving toward de-escalation quickly today. Iran has stated that their "operation" is over and they will take no further action unless in response to new US action. Trump is reportedly welcoming the chance for the two nations to move beyond this exchange.

Will there be a new push to negotiations, or will we return to status quo ante, where it will only be a matter of time before the next exchange? Also, how will the air crash play in the situation if evidence comes out that it was an Iranian missile?

Iran's response? Nobody dead. Minimal damage.
Gee, it's almost as if they wanted us to take the guy out for them.

 

[V Chip]

Thank you!!

You're welcome?

 

[efil4]

It was a tweet. It's hardly what they're suggesting it is. And FYI, I'm not defending her, I don't care about her. I'm defending reason.

Maybe so and true... but there may be some there may be Trump hater out there building a bomb that had not thought of it either, and he just needs a place to explode it...

So are you saying her comments were ok.?

What if Trump had mentioned what if people target Nancy Pelosis' proprty? Would it still be ok in your eyes?

I REALLY hope that helps you understand. You know, full context and all that stuff that you routinely omit to formulate opinions.

 

[The moose]

I don't think it's racist.

Ignorant and bigoted AF, but not inherently racist.

Do you loose sight that she is African because of religion?

The fact that they are all bent out of shape when one of the new brown skin senators says or does something speaks volumes.

I will be the first to admit that she has had some serious growing pains but nothing she said was wrong.

She was just pointing out how he has not followed the rules and we as a nation are paying for it.

It is not hard to connect the dots with what happened with Turkey was because of his business in Istanbul not the what was best for our nation and certainly not our allies.

 

[The moose]

Maybe so and true... but there may be some there may be Trump hater out there building a bomb that had not thought of it either, and he just needs a place to explode it...

So are you saying her comments were ok.?

What if Trump had mentioned what if people target Nancy Pelosis' proprty? Would it still be ok in your eyes?

Well I would like to think that Nancy is not poking bears with a stick like Donald is.

Wo why would they?

 

[V Chip]

Do you loose sight that she is African because of religion?

No, I don't. However, I believe that the color of her skin -- while being *a* factor -- is not the biggest factor in their decision/words. I think there is a much bigger bias against Islam in general. To me, it is the much bigger "otherness" in the equation that causes irrational fear and trepidation. I also believe that in general people can and do say or think racist things without actually being racist themselves (just as many people say bigoted things without being the "-ist" version -- sexist comments without being a sexist, racist comments without being a racist, anti-religion comments without being anti-religion, etc.). Labeling a person as the "-ist" is generally too easy and lazy -- it's not taking the time to separate the bad behavior from the overall person.

There are a hell of a lot of bigoted people and people who say bigoted things who aren't full-blown "-ist" IMO. But I do understand where you are coming from, because unfortunately there are also a lot of people who are the full-blown "-ist" as well.

 

[superchuck500]

Iran's response? Nobody dead. Minimal damage.
Gee, it's almost as if they wanted us to take the guy out for them.

They want to get back to asymmetry.

 

[Joe Okc]

The fact that they are all bent out of shape when one of the new brown skin senators says or does something speaks volumes.

Who is they? I am curious.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[JimEverett]

I am in a place where I cannot read the Post. Does it say anything specific as to how we knew - beyond just "intelligence"?

 

[superchuck500]

I am in a place where I cannot read the Post. Does it say anything specific as to how we knew - beyond just "intelligence"?

It says "the 'good kind' of intelligence - not the kind that makes up lies about Russia."

Actually, it was Iraqi sources and communications (intercepted I presume):

The early warning came from intelligence sources as well as communications from Iraq, which conveyed Iran’s intentions to launch the strike, officials said.

“We knew, and the Iraqis told us, that this was coming many hours in advance,” said a senior administration official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence and diplomatic communications.

“We had intelligence reports several hours in advance that the Iranians were seeking to strike the bases,” the official said. That gave military commanders time to get U.S. troops into safe, fortified positions at their bases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-officials-knew-iranian-missiles-were-coming-hours-in-advance/2020/01/08/b6297b4c-3235-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

[JimEverett]

It says "the 'good kind' of intelligence - not the kind that makes up lies about Russia."

Actually, it was Iraqi sources and communications (intercepted I presume):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-officials-knew-iranian-missiles-were-coming-hours-in-advance/2020/01/08/b6297b4c-3235-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

I might be overthinking it, but I don't think it would be surprising if Iran told Iraqi sources with the intent that we would find out and take precautions.

 

[superchuck500]

I might be overthinking it, but I don't think it would be surprising if Iran told Iraqi sources with the intent that we would find out and take precautions.

It's possible - Iran had to be careful to accomplish their "response" without a new provocation.

I think it's also true that there are elements of the Iraqi military and intelligent apparatus that know that if given a choice between working with the US or Iran, the choice of US is obvious to them. But I agree, it would be sensible for Iran to have tried to mitigate the possibility of significant US casualties.

 

[PartTimeLurker]

I might be overthinking it, but I don't think it would be surprising if Iran told Iraqi sources with the intent that we would find out and take precautions.

The idea is reminiscent of the 2017 tomahawk strike on the Shayrat airfield. Didn't want to kill rooskies.