Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnh

Trump in charge (ex race for the US presidency thread)

Recommended Posts

Senator Chris Murphy:

Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question.

The question is this - as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?

It looks like it also occurred at Iraq's largest civilian airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

Likewise on the feeling. Obviously aware of everything going on in the Middle East, but this does feel different. Hopefully it doesn't lead to worse, but I don't trust Trump to attempt to deescalate it. 

And you can bet Boris will be as far up his arse as humanly possible, with a promise from Trump we will get a special trade deal which Boris can use as his get out of Jail card over his EU mess up. 

Share this post


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

Well he needs to leave something truly historic as his legacy, what could be better than WWIII? It'll go down in history as "the greatest and biggest war ever" by those lucky enough to survive it; which will obviously include him as I'm sure he has a top notch luxury underground bunker, just part of his top notch luxury underground golf course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MikeO said:

Well he needs to leave something truly historic as his legacy, what could be better than WWIII? It'll go down in history as "the greatest and biggest war ever" by those lucky enough to survive it; which will obviously include him as I'm sure he has a top notch luxury underground bunker, just part of his top notch luxury underground golf course.

My theory is he's trying to get us into another World War so he can pull an FDR and stay in office longer than two terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Palfy said:

It was a unilateral decision to do what they did so no one should back him, he needs to walk this path as he started on his own. 

We don't (and likely won't for some time)  know the intelligence that the USA had which led them to take this decision. That is the very nature of classified intelligence gathering unfortunately. The USA position is that it was a response to past, present and known planned, deadly attacks on USA/Western personnel. For USA to give further details may compromise the sources of the intelligence and jeapordise future intelligence gathering.

This is a situation which requires individual political agendas and feelings to be set aside. At some stage, the justification (or not) for the strike will come into the public domain. Unless or until it does, it would be wrong imho to criticise the action. Trump definitely did not take this action unilaterally. There is more than enough expertise, maturity, intelligence and strength of character around him to have stopped this if there was no good Security based reason for it. If the action stopped another 911 type of scenario then it has my full support. I understand that Trump is not the most popular POTUS on this board but this decision will have been agreed to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they are not averse to saying No if necessary.

None of us on this board will know the important intelligence that led to this action for quite a while and, until we do, it is a time for cool heads to prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sibdane said:

 

It looks like it also occurred at Iraq's largest civilian airport.

It did. Apparently he was being driven to Baghdad airport and his car was taken out by a drone strike just outside the airport perimeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/01/2020 at 01:07, RPG said:

We don't (and likely won't for some time)  know the intelligence that the USA had which led them to take this decision. That is the very nature of classified intelligence gathering unfortunately. The USA position is that it was a response to past, present and known planned, deadly attacks on USA/Western personnel. For USA to give further details may compromise the sources of the intelligence and jeapordise future intelligence gathering.

This is a situation which requires individual political agendas and feelings to be set aside. At some stage, the justification (or not) for the strike will come into the public domain. Unless or until it does, it would be wrong imho to criticise the action. Trump definitely did not take this action unilaterally. There is more than enough expertise, maturity, intelligence and strength of character around him to have stopped this if there was no good Security based reason for it. If the action stopped another 911 type of scenario then it has my full support. I understand that Trump is not the most popular POTUS on this board but this decision will have been agreed to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they are not averse to saying No if necessary.

None of us on this board will know the important intelligence that led to this action for quite a while and, until we do, it is a time for cool heads to prevail.

I think most would support it, but we'll probably never know, and I prefer not to live by "ifs." 

However, "if" you think Trump listens to those around him then you haven't been paying attention. 

Share this post


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

I think most would support it, but we'll probably never know, and I prefer not to live by "ifs." 

However, "if" you think Trump listens to those around him then you haven't been paying attention. 

In this case, we all have to live by 'ifs.' We have to accept that Trump and the Joint Chiefs have access to intelligence information that you and I will never be privy to. Trump may be POTUS but he could not have carried out this action without the approval of the Joint Chiefs. If they disagreed and Trump still insisted, there would have been mass resignations from VERY senior military positions. That hasn't happened so the only logical conclusion is that the Joint Chiefs looked at the intelligence and approved the strike. Trump would not have gone against the advice of the Joint Chiefs on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RPG said:

Trump may be POTUS but he could not have carried out this action without the approval of the Joint Chiefs. If they disagreed and Trump still insisted, there would have been mass resignations from VERY senior military positions. That hasn't happened so the only logical conclusion is that the Joint Chiefs looked at the intelligence and approved the strike. Trump would not have gone against the advice of the Joint Chiefs on this matter.

You don't know Trump. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/05/pentagon-chief-kept-tight-circle-on-suleimani-strike/

Technically, you're right. He didn't go against any advice from his Joint Chiefs; however, it doesn't seem they were even consulted to even give advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That proves nothing. It would be quite right and proper to follow 'Need to Know' protocols. And the very article you link to quotes 'some' senior figures which, by default means not all.

The Joint Chiefs would have been in on this decision, no matter what your link says. Who do you think 'piloted' the drones and where did they get the strike order from. There is a strict chain of command with checks and balances all the way down it. Any breach of protocol on such a high value target would have resulted in the trigger not being squeezed.

6 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RPG said:

That proves nothing. It would be quite right and proper to follow 'Need to Know' protocols. And the very article you link to quotes 'some' senior figures which, by default means not all.

The Joint Chiefs would have been in on this decision, no matter what your link says. Who do you think 'piloted' the drones and whete did they gettheorder from. There is a strict chain of command with checks and balances all the way downit. Any breach of protocol would have resulted in the trigger not being squeezed.

 

You're not paying attention then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sibdane said:

You're not paying attention then. 

Believe me, I am paying very close attention. I live and work about 100 miles from Iran!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RPG said:

Believe me, I am paying very close attention. I live and work about 100 miles from Iran!

That's fine, but my point is that you're putting too much faith in Trump's government to make the best decision. Most view points over here are that he took the most extreme position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know that. I can understand people not trusting Trump as an individual but even as POTUS there are procedures to be followed and criteria to be met before that sort of action can even be looked at. And then, despite any media links to the contrary, it will have to have been signed off by the Joint Chiefs.

People trying to demonise Trump for this action either don't understand the safeguards in the system (and that is not a criticism of them) or are trying to make domestic political capital out of a serious global situation.

Trump may be a bit of a loose canon but he could not have taken a strike decision contrary to advicefrom the Joint Chiefs. So, it comes down to a question of trust, not in Trump, but in the safeguards in the protocols.

 

1 minute ago, Sibdane said:

That's fine, but my point is that you're putting too much faith in Trump's government to make the best decision. Most view points over here are that he took the most extreme position. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RPG said:

We don't know that. I can understand people not trusting Trump as an individual but even as POTUS there are procedures to be followed and criteria to be met before that sort of action can even be looked at. And then, despite any media links to the contrary, it will have to have been signed off by the Joint Chiefs.

People trying to demonise Trump for this action either don't understand the safeguards in the system (and that is not a criticism of them) or are trying to make domestic political capital out of a serious global situation.

Trump may be a bit of a loose canon but he could not have taken a strike decision contrary to advicefrom the Joint Chiefs. So, it comes down to a question of trust, not in Trump, but in the safeguards in the protocols.

 

 

Who appoints the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sibdane said:

Who appoints the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Now I think you are getting into paranoid fantasy land. The Joint Chiefs are fiercely apolitical and will always put country before politics. Like I said, it's a question of trust in the system.

Seems odd that a Brit (albeit with a fairly lengthy military background who worked on many occasions with US Forces) has more faith in the US than you, who I presume is a US citizen.

I get it that some people are anti Trump but to infer that he is the only person in the US chain of command who approved and authorised the strike is a bridge too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RPG said:

Now I think you are getting into paranoid fantasy land. The Joint Chiefs are fiercely apolitical and will always put country before politics. Like I said, it's a question of trust in the system.

Seems odd that a Brit (albeit with a fairly lengthy military background who worked on many occasions with US Forces) has more faith in the US than you, who I presume is a US citizen.

I get it that some people are anti Trump but to infer that he is the only person in the US chain of command who approved and authorised the strike is a bridge too far.

Just to expand on this some more. I do not 100% trust our system. To put 100% trust in anything that can be considered a bureaucracy is absolutely naive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sibdane said:

Just to expand on this some more. I do not 100% trust our system. To put 100% trust in anything that can be considered a bureaucracy is absolutely naive. 

You are not quite right there. The joint chiefs could have stopped this if they did not agree with it from a military perspective.

And, just for context, Obama ordered 542 drone strikes, killing an estimated 3,797 people, of which 324 were civilians. Hardly a murmur from the media. Yet when Trump follows Obama's lead, it's headline news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RPG said:

You are not quite right there. The joint chiefs could have stopped this if they did not agree with it from a military perspective.

And, just for context, Obama ordered 542 drone strikes, killing an estimated 3,797 people, of which 324 were civilians. Hardly a murmur from the media. Yet when Trump follows Obama's lead, it's headline news.

That's because Obama went about his business while Trump tries to pretend he's a hero and boasts about his "accomplishments" on Twitter. 

Trump has also been untruthful or misleading about literally hundreds of things, so of course he's going to get more scrutiny/coverage. He sells himself to the media and he loves that attention. He's been all over the media his entire life by his own choice. 

Share this post


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

That's because Obama went about his business while Trump tries to pretend he's a hero and boasts about his "accomplishments" on Twitter. 

Trump has also been untruthful or misleading about literally hundreds of things, so of course he's going to get more scrutiny/coverage. He sells himself to the media and he loves that attention. He's been all over the media his entire life by his own choice. 

Share this post


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

That's because Obama went about his business while Trump tries to pretend he's a hero and boasts about his "accomplishments" on Twitter. 

Trump has also been untruthful or misleading about literally hundreds of things, so of course he's going to get more scrutiny/coverage. He sells himself to the media and he loves that attention. He's been all over the media his entire life by his own choice. 

So, it's Trumps style rather than his actions you don't like?

He has authorised far fewer drone strikes than Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RPG said:

So, it's Trumps style rather than his actions you don't like?

He has authorised far fewer drone strikes than Obama.

I dislike both.

Also, I never said anything about what Obama has done or what actions he's taken that I approve or disapprove of, and that's a really annoying way to try and make a point, because you're trying to use past actions to validate present ones. Just because person X did something and person Y does the something similar doesn't mean that X or Y is right. 

We're talking about what Trump is doing now rather than what Obama has done in the past. Not only that, your comparison isn't even a good one considering Trump has been in office three years versus Obama's eight. 

But if you must compare them:

Quote

The drone program under Obama and the strike that killed Soleimani are not apt comparisons. The U.S. has been carrying out drone warfare in the region since the administration of George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor. Although such warfare has always been controversial, the fallout over the killing of Soleimani is the result of his status in the Iranian government. As Reuters reported, “Major General Qassem Soleimani was the second most powerful man in Iran. He answered only to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” His killing, per Reuters, “struck at the heart” of leadership in Tehran.

In March 2018, Trump revoked an Obama executive order requiring an annual disclosure of civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism also reported that the number of drone strikes ratcheted up during Trump’s first year in office, doubling in Somalia and tripling in Yemen.

This is my last say on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

Not only that, your comparison isn't even a good one considering Trump has been in office three years versus Obama's eight. 

There's also the small point that in Obama's first three years in office the US was still an active participant in the war, so rather more likely to be involved in action than after they "withdrew" at the end of 2011. Trump has never been at war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Obama said he liked the TV show Homeland, which is sadistic if you consider what he was authorising at the time. He's just as bad as any murderous bastard in my eyes. 

Where?  His favorite show was The Wire, which is also my favorite.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

Where?  His favorite show was The Wire, which is also my favorite.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/woldcnews.com/978867/obama-a-fan-of-boardwalk-empire-and-homeland/amp/

He's a murderer. His drones killed kids and he goes round with a smile on his face pretending to be a humstarian because of some half arsed health bill. 

If the US and UK go to war with the world we will be the bad guys in the future films. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MikeO said:

There's also the small point that in Obama's first three years in office the US was still an active participant in the war, so rather more likely to be involved in action than after they "withdrew" at the end of 2011. Trump has never been at war.

Yet...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MikeO said:

There's also the small point that in Obama's first three years in office the US was still an active participant in the war, so rather more likely to be involved in action than after they "withdrew" at the end of 2011. Trump has never been at war.

Trump is doing exactly what Bush Jnr did he is trying his hardest to start a war, but for different reasons Trump is doing for his own ego and self importance, and with an agenda to disrupt his impeachment. 
This one action were he bypassed protocol and ignored any advice against the action he took, because his status as President allowed him to will ultimately cost many Americans and other nationalities there lives. 

know surprise to me at all that there is one person in particular on here who is defending Trump, sums him up in so many ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most devastating detail, which no-one has really picked up on yet, is what the president tweeted at the very time of the assassination: a picture of an American flag. The age-old pattern will now play out: Wrap yourself in the flag and brand those who counsel caution as unpatriotic, as cowards, even as dangerous enemies. The populace obligingly falls into line, and the blood begins to flow.

The war to end all wars, they said in 1918. Hell on earth, my grandfather recalled of his time fighting at the Somme. Yet here we go again - unless wiser heads can prevail. Europe, please, stand up and declare yourselves against this man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

The most devastating detail, which no-one has really picked up on yet, is what the president tweeted at the very time of the assassination: a picture of an American flag. The age-old pattern will now play out: Wrap yourself in the flag and brand those who counsel caution as unpatriotic, as cowards, even as dangerous enemies. The populace obligingly falls into line, and the blood begins to flow.

The war to end all wars, they said in 1918. Hell on earth, my grandfather recalled of his time fighting at the Somme. Yet here we go again - unless wiser heads can prevail. Europe, please, stand up and declare yourselves against this man.

The people have and will, most of our so called leaders will not, out of some fear that we are nothing without the President’s say so.

Share this post


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

know surprise to me at all that there is one person in particular on here who is defending Trump, sums him up in so many ways. 

Give it a rest Palfy. There are more important things happening in thè world at the moment than your Rioja fuelled personal feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sibdane said:

I dislike both.

Also, I never said anything about what Obama has done or what actions he's taken that I approve or disapprove of, and that's a really annoying way to try and make a point, because you're trying to use past actions to validate present ones. Just because person X did something and person Y does the something similar doesn't mean that X or Y is right. 

We're talking about what Trump is doing now rather than what Obama has done in the past. Not only that, your comparison isn't even a good one considering Trump has been in office three years versus Obama's eight. 

But if you must compare them:

This is my last say on this. 

Even pro rata, Obama's stats are worse.

However, I agree that the past is academic at the moment and it is the present that needs our attention. IRGC attacked US sites at Irbil and Al Asad last night with 22 missiles and, about the same time, a Ukranian airliner crashed on take off from Imam Khomeini International, Tehran in, as yet, unknown circumstances. Circa 168 dead.

Trump has promised a statement this morning USA time and the ball is now back in USA's court.

We should have a better idea of where this is heading in the next day or so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pete0 said:

Obama said he liked the TV show Homeland, which is sadistic if you consider what he was authorising at the time. He's just as bad as any murderous bastard in my eyes. 

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chach said:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Trump would need to know the nationality of the people before making the decision; if the one was American and the five were from "shithole nations" he'd let the trolley run for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Trump would need to know the nationality of the people before making the decision; if the one was American and the five were from "shithole nations" he'd let the thing run.

Unless the one person was a woman who doesn't take care of her appearance, then the five shitholeans would live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial data coming from the B737 crash shortly after take off from Imam Khomeini International suggests this was not an engine failure. The climb gradient was initially normal and data then stopped abruptly. It is usual in the event of an engine failure for the climb gradient to shallow off and it is almost unheard of for data transmission to cease unless the failure was either immediate and catastrophic, or possibly wilful.

This doesn't automatically mean it was shot down of course but I think reasons other than engine failure are likely. Hopefully, they will be found to be of a technical rather than a terrorist nature.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51044996

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RPG said:

Initial data coming from the B737 crash shortly after take off from Imam Khomeini International suggests this was not an engine failure. The climb gradient was initially normal and data then stopped abruptly. It is usual in the event of an engine failure for the climb gradient to shallow off and it is almost unheard of for data transmission to cease unless the failure was either immediate and catastrophic, or possibly wilful.

This doesn't automatically mean it was shot down of course but I think reasons other than engine failure are likely. Hopefully, they will be found to be of a technical rather than a terrorist nature.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51044996

Another Boeing goes down.   Do you fly Boeings (the 737 MAX perhaps?) ?  Any difference in safety with Airbus planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Chach said:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

There was a computer "game" made like this where the test subject was told to operate a lift for the computer characters to go up and down. At some point one of the characters would start shooting the others and request to go in the lift. The test subject had to decide whether to let the shooter use the lift knowing that he would kill everyone upstairs or do nothing and let them kill everyone downstairs.

There were more people downstairs so the test was whether you would willingly let the fewer people upstairs die to save the majority downstairs or would you abdicate and let whatever happen play out without your input.

I would have let him shoot everyone downstairs and then let him go upstairs to finish the job personally 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TallPaul1878 said:

There was a computer "game" made like this where the test subject was told to operate a lift for the computer characters to go up and down. At some point one of the characters would start shooting the others and request to go in the lift. The test subject had to decide whether to let the shooter use the lift knowing that he would kill everyone upstairs or do nothing and let them kill everyone downstairs.

There were more people downstairs so the test was whether you would willingly let the fewer people upstairs die to save the majority downstairs or would you abdicate and let whatever happen play out without your input.

I would have let him shoot everyone downstairs and then let him go upstairs to finish the job personally 🤣

If it was Trump towers I wouldn’t have worked there😉

Share this post


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

Another Boeing goes down.   Do you fly Boeings (the 737 MAX perhaps?) ?  Any difference in safety with Airbus planes?

I currently fly Boeing 777 and have flown nothing but Boeing since 1994. I started on Boeing 757, then Boeing 767, then Boeing 747 and now Boeing 777.

Boeing, imho, has always been the better aeroplane than the equivalent Airbus aircraft but there have definitely been issues with Boeing 737Max aircraft recently which has resulted in tragic loss of life. The B737Max is still grounded. The Boeing737-800 which crashed in Iran does not have the MCAS 'technology' installed which was a major causal factor in the crashes of both Boeing 737Max aircraft.

One of the factors that will have to be looked at with the 737Max accidents is that MCAS certification approvals from FAA were allowed to be awarded by what was effectively 'in house' Boeing Auditors - a conflict of interests if ever there was one. This is obviously not relevant in this particular crash. I have seen pictures of the fuselage and wing segments and they display puncture type 'shrapnel' holes which may just have come from an uncontained engine explosion or could have come from exactly the type of anti aircraft missile that brough dowm the Malaysian 777 over Ukraine a few years ago. An explosion from inside the cabin should not be ruled out either but the shrapnel holes look like the energy source which caused them (see first attached pic) came from outside the aircraft as the metal is bent inwards. This does not automatically mean a missile though as an exploding, uncontained engine failure (very, very unlikely imho) could have caused it.

There was also, apparently, no communication from the aircraft to ATC - very unusual unless it was impossible. An engine failure would not cause loss of communication.

Second pic is of recovered MAS B777 forward fuselage which was confirmed shot down by a missile. Compare the shrapnel holes. Not conclusive, but certainly similar.

IMG_2918.JPG

IMG_2919.JPG

Share this post


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

Ukraine already drawing comparisons with B777 shot down by a Russian missile. Russia supplies Arms to Iran.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51044996

I'm not completely up to speed with the timeline currently. Did the plane go down the same day as the Iranian missile attacks in Iraq? Is it possible that a stray missile hit it?

If it was a different day then some outside factor could be at play? Very strange one this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

I'm not completely up to speed with the timeline currently. Did the plane go down the same day as the Iranian missile attacks in Iraq? Is it possible that a stray missile hit it?

If it was a different day then some outside factor could be at play? Very strange one this

It crashed just a few hours after the attacks.

And now, this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51055219

There may be repercussions now.

I will attach a pic shortly to this post which does show disconcerting photographic 'evidence' of a missile involvement.

Pic shows a spent TOR M1 missile very close to the crash site. Pic taken shortly after the crash.

IMG_2927.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RPG said:

It crashed just a few hours after the attacks.

And now, this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51055219

There may be repercussions now.

I will attach a pic shortly to this post which does show disconcerting photographic 'evidence' of a missile involvement.

Possibly they were expecting a retaliatory strike from US/Israeli air force and jumped the gun?

This is what may thinking was. Unless it was a false flag strike. The more that gets uncovered the more likely it was shot down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Possibly they were expecting a retaliatory strike from US/Israeli air force and jumped the gun?

This is what may thinking was. Unless it was a false flag strike. The more that gets uncovered the more likely it was shot down

It looks like either an itchy trigger finger or the IFF (Transponder) codes were set to Automatic on the Fire Control Radar and there has either been a technical fault or human error on the part of the Iranian military.

The link to my BBC article suggests it was shot down by Iran but by mistake.

This link is also worth a read.

https://defence-blog.com/news/ukrainian-passenger-jet-crashed-after-being-hit-by-iranian-tor-m1-missile.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MikeO said:

His narcissism knows no bounds..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

"Did Trump help broker peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea?
Not really - the US's influence in the peace talks was minimal."

What's more annoying is his supporters. Hearing them in the background of that twitter clip makes me cringe. They eat up anything he says. I've never seen more cult-like rallies than what we're witnessing with Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he was in ohio at his rally he said "ohio has never been better thanks to trump", the local newspaper meanwhile reported how many jobs have left the state and how the state has declined.  straight lying and his unintelligent followers love it.  they don't look anything up.  just take it for gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

What's more annoying is his supporters. Hearing them in the background of that twitter clip makes me cringe. They eat up anything he says. I've never seen more cult-like rallies than what we're witnessing with Trump. 

Thing I find disturbing (one of the many at least) is that I can't think of another political leader who has been so boastful of himself and his achievements; not even if you delve into the worst dictators in living memory did anyone talk about their personal greatness (talking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, various Korean Kims & Ayatollahs) anywhere near as much, if at all; it was about the cause (no matter how twisted their reasoning). The only person I can compare him to is a young Cassius Clay, difference being that Trump means and believes it and the man who became Ali was being a showman; and a lot of what he said he backed up with actions whereas Trump just barefaced lies.

I think there's a whole psychosis textbook to be written on his behaviour and that of his followers and apologists.

Share this post


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

Thing I find disturbing (one of the many at least) is that I can't think of another political leader who has been so boastful of himself and his achievements; not even if you delve into the worst dictators in living memory did anyone talk about their personal greatness (talking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, various Korean Kims & Ayatollahs) anywhere near as much, if at all; it was about the cause (no matter how twisted their reasoning). The only person I can compare him to is a young Cassius Clay, difference being that Trump means and believes it and the man who became Ali was being a showman; and a lot of what he said he backed up with actions whereas Trump just barefaced lies.

I think there's a whole psychosis textbook to be written on his behaviour and that of his followers and apologists.

 

1 minute ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Trump.is the gift that keeps on giving. He's gonna get a second term too

I haven't been around on this Earth a long time, but I completely agree. I've never seen a "politician" like Trump nor did I realize that people like his supporters are so numerous. I knew they existed, but I had no idea there were so many with his mindset. 

Unfortunately Paul, I think you're right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

 

I haven't been around on this Earth a long time, but I completely agree. I've never seen a "politician" like Trump nor did I realize that people like his supporters are so numerous. I knew they existed, but I had no idea there were so many with his mindset. 

Unfortunately Paul, I think you're right. 

What you have to understand is that for a great many Americans they had just had 8 years of Democrat rule. Further expansion of war in the middle east, further decay of the fly over states and for them it was just about having something different. Hillary absolutely represented more of the same and that was something that, obviously, a great many people didn't want.

Without blowing my own trumpet I predicted Trump to win, I predicted Brexit, I predicted a massive victory for the Conservatives in the election just gone and, unless of some big developments, I'm gonna call another term for Trump.

For the vast majority of Americans the issues around Trump are irrelevant. Democrats are pushing ever further left, having candidates speaking in Spanish to pander to the latino vote, pursuing a partisan impeachment on what appear to be trumped up charges. The middle ground is not with the Democrats and they have no figurehead who can take Trump on.

There was a study done based on policy position amongst the two major parties. Whilst both had shifted further on the political spectrum it showed that the Democrats had shifted significantly more to the left than the Republicans had shifted to the right. Socialism is just a really hard sell in the USA and the Democrats have gotten the reputation of being the party of minorities and "woke" culture.

For the ordinary American, as it is in the UK, social issues like gay marriage, abortion rights etc just really don't matter. They don't put food on the table and keep the mortgages paid. The Democrats, just as the Labour Party in Britain, have managed to give themselves the reputation of being anti white working class and if they keep up with that they are doomed to failure.

Calling your opponents deplorables, racists, bigots and Nazis is hardly endearing. The vast majority of people are liberal leaning, live and let live. Unfortunately the left leaning parties have seen fit to push a social marxists agenda and embarked upon a purity spiral where they eat their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Further expansion of war in the middle east

Obama pulled the US out of the war three years in.

 

44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

further decay of the fly over states

A real live 'merican stated above about the decline in Ohio under Trump, I'm not sure of the definition of a "flyover state" but I'm guessing that's one of them.

 

44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

I'm gonna call another term for Trump.

I agree.

 

44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

For the vast majority of Americans the issues around Trump are irrelevant.

That's a very sad statement on a country when a blatantly obvious racist misogynist psychopath gets a free pass.

 

44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

...pursuing a partisan impeachment on what appear to be trumped up charges.

Proven charges.

 

44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Calling your opponents deplorables, racists, bigots and Nazis is hardly endearing.

May not be endearing but sometimes the truth hurts.

44 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Unfortunately the left leaning parties have seen fit to push a social marxists agenda and embarked upon a purity spiral where they eat their own.

No idea what that means, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

...having candidates speaking in Spanish to pander to the latino vote...

Missed this one; why would they not? There is no language called "American" because all but the few natives left are immigrants. A little different but William Rees Mogg wouldn't stand in Newcastle because no bugger would understand what he was saying; if you're educated enough to talk to your electorate in their mother tongue why would you not? It's not "pandering" it's communicating.

Share this post


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

Missed this one; why would they not? There is no language called "American" because all but the few natives left are immigrants. A little different but William Rees Mogg wouldn't stand in Newcastle because no bugger would understand what he was saying; if you're educated enough to talk to your electorate in their mother tongue why would you not? It's not "pandering" it's communicating.

You're slightly hitting on something here. The USA has always been known as the melting pot, but unfortunately a lot of the white males are afraid of it becoming more mixed. I'm not one who insists on being PC, but it's no coincidence that Trump supporters have a certain view on what is acceptable and what is not as to what constitutes a "real" American.  

Share this post


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

Missed this one; why would they not? There is no language called "American" because all but the few natives left are immigrants. A little different but William Rees Mogg wouldn't stand in Newcastle because no bugger would understand what he was saying; if you're educated enough to talk to your electorate in their mother tongue why would you not? It's not "pandering" it's communicating.

Very revealing that @TallPaul1878gave me a red for that, tells me all I need to know about you dude unless you can rationalise your dislike for what I think is a harmless non-partisan observation. If you found yourself in a position where a lot of your listeners spoke French and you could remember some from your schooldays why in the world not speak French to them as best you can? Or would you just speak English slowly and loudly?

Share this post


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

Thing I find disturbing (one of the many at least) is that I can't think of another political leader who has been so boastful of himself and his achievements; not even if you delve into the worst dictators in living memory did anyone talk about their personal greatness (talking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, various Korean Kims & Ayatollahs) anywhere near as much, if at all; it was about the cause (no matter how twisted their reasoning). The only person I can compare him to is a young Cassius Clay, difference being that Trump means and believes it and the man who became Ali was being a showman; and a lot of what he said he backed up with actions whereas Trump just barefaced lies.

I think there's a whole psychosis textbook to be written on his behaviour and that of his followers and apologists.

Yesterday on Twitter he took credit for declining cancer death rates.

Just consider the mentality of someone making that connection, also someone needs to explain to him what a lagging indicator is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...