IRAN / USA

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Instead of enacting failed regime changes?

When China illegally and immorally attacked and subsumed Tibet was that a failed or successful regime change? Asking for a friend

[Papillon + 485]

@Douglas Buckland For the record, I have indeed blocked Mr Smith however, due to his accusations and delusions, despite his seemingly daily self-proclaimed wisdom to the site. So on occasion sir, I will ignore certain users, though Mr van Eck, as of now atleast, is not currently blocked, as I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in certain areas. 

But I thankyou for your view on taking my own advice, although I fear it did not apply to the situation whatsoever or make a great deal of sense. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon

[Boat + 1,324]

10 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I like everything I've ever seen you post here, but this statement is factually in error. You've fallen into the MSM trap (purposefully laid) of conflating illegal immigration, which Trump opposes with legal immigration, which Trump supports. From an economic perspective, illegal immigrants do far more harm than good, although the DNC and their apologists in the MSM and "think tanks" have tortured the data to "confess" that there might be some good from it. Bottom line, there isn't. The Pygmalion prophecy that no one else will do "that work" that illegals do is self fulfilling, since illegals continually push down the pay that economics would otherwise require be supplied to fill the void. 

Trump really isn’t against illeagle immigration. He is for smoke and mirrors. I live in Houston and hundreds of thousands of illegals live here. What Trump wants to continue is that cheap labor for business. Their health care comes from the emergency room that they can’t pay and are educated for free. Blame the immigrant is the Trump line while jail those who hire them is never brought up. He’ll spend over 20 billion a year while never taking care of the problem. Just like all his presidential predecessors.

[remake it + 288]

13 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

When China illegally and immorally attacked and subsumed Tibet was that a failed or successful regime change? Asking for a friend

When was Tibet not a part of China and who in the international community said any different?

[Papillon + 485]

Mr Buckland, on occasion here however sir, I do happen to see parts of Mr Smith's posts if he is quoted by somebody, as above. You will recall mentioning to me about bringing up China in a thread about the USA and Iran. I assume you will be making a similar comment to Mr Smith regarding this, or would this be an instance of adding yet further hypocrisies to the growing list here? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

22 minutes ago, Papillon said:

@Douglas Buckland For the record, I have indeed blocked Mr Smith however, due to his accusations and delusions, despite his seemingly daily self-proclaimed wisdom to the site. So on occasion sir, I will ignore certain users, though Mr van Eck, as of now atleast, is not currently blocked, as I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in certain areas. 

But I thankyou for your view on taking my own advice, although I fear it did not apply to the situation whatsoever or make a great deal of sense. 

You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

PS: It made perfect sense unless you simply want to continue your helical discussion.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Mr Buckland, on occasion here however sir, I do happen to see parts of Mr Smith's posts if he is quoted by somebody, as above. You will recall mentioning to me about bringing up China in a thread about the USA and Iran. I assume you will be making a similar comment to Mr Smith regarding this, or would this be an instance of adding yet further hypocrisies to the growing list here? 

Dear Sir, YOU brought Mr. Smith into this discussion, not I.

[Papillon + 485]

This is relevant why sir? The hypocrisy regarding China in a thread about Iran and USA is now not so because I mentioned it and him first, and not yourself? You are making very little sense sir I'm afraid to say currently. What difference does that make at all to my point? It appears to be yourself that I cannot 'make drink'.

You made a comment to me about bringing up China in this very thread, suggesting it was not on topic. When Mr Smith does the same thing, I point this out and your reply is that I brought Mr Smith up in the conversation? Yes, I did. Well spotted? I rather hoped you would spot the constant hypocrisy here, rather than specific timings of who posts what and when, as if that is of any importance. 

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

This appears to be somewhat of a metaphor for the site sir, with 'water' representing facts and 'drinking' representing certain users' inability to absorb or admit them.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon
Horse statement rather fitting here.

[PE Scott + 563]

53 minutes ago, Papillon said:

This appears to be somewhat of a metaphor for the site sir, with water representing facts and drinking representing certain users' ability to absorb or admit them.

The hypocrisy is what's nuts. None us can agree on eachothers "facts"

Even using that term is so loaded it makes it silly to argue. Calling something a fact communicates you think its indisputable, which few things are in the context of this forum. 

[Papillon + 485]

Facts are not disputable sir in reference to the order things are said within threads for example. I take your point but by facts I am making reference to other threads, and the notion here that when there is no argument it seems at all, then it suggests to me some do not like reading the truth. Their silence or rewarding of a red arrow as their apparent argument for example suggests nothing else to me, as if it were not fact they would surely attempt to prove otherwise.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

When was Tibet not a part of China and who in the international community said any different?

Everyone says different, but China is busy whitewashing history as you well know. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Whiny bitch Papillion wants to complain about China, because he didn't bring it up, let alone my reference was in response to a statement, but no mind. 

Meanwhile back on track Iran has confessed to shooting down the Ukrainian jet

[Papillon + 485]

14 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I missed the part where the 9/11 comment wasn't a joke, and apologized for mis-reading it and overreacting as it was meant as a sincere comment.

Understood sir, I see this now. I had not seen the reference to you misreading it before this moment I must confess. Thankyou for your reply and explanation, it is very much appreciated. 

[PE Scott + 563]

Wow! I thought it was pretty clear Iran likely shot down that commercial flight on accident, but I honestly didn't expect them to admit it this quickly. Perhaps the verified video of the plane being shot down changed their mind about clearly lying.

It just goes to show that theyll lie to cover their ass first and only admit the truth when its evident theyll be caught in a lie, if they haven't been already.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by PE Scott

[Papillon + 485]

14 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

 theyll lie to cover their ass first and only admit the truth when its evident theyll be caught in a lie, if they haven't been already.

You realise you are talking about the Iranian regime yes sir? They are hardly a moral compass. 

Forgive me, I jest. Blame the red wine.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon

[PE Scott + 563]

On 1/9/2020 at 2:26 PM, remake it said:

It is interesting how the West is controlling the present narrative that comments here rely on when the Iranians have said that their evidence is wholly contrary to that narrative - which just confirms the nature of confirmation bias existing within this forum and a reluctance to even consider why a contrary position might be reasoned.

I'm just saying, this is why there is a certain confirmation bias. Propagandists media controlled by the host country government is hardly impartial.

“Scientifically, it is impossible that a missile hit the Ukrainian plane, and such rumours are illogical,” Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran’s of Civil Aviation Organisation told a state-run media outlet.

Talk about a 180

Edited January 11, 2020 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Everyone says different, but China is busy whitewashing history as you well know. 

Linking to a site which does not confirm Tibet's status in the international community does not assist you.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

I'm just saying, this is why there is a certain confirmation bias. Propagandists media controlled by the host country government is hardly impartial.

Is it possible that Iran is borrowing from the US President's playbook?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

I'm just saying, this is why there is a certain confirmation bias. Propagandists media controlled by the host country government is hardly impartial.

“Scientifically, it is impossible that a missile hit the Ukrainian plane, and such rumours are illogical,” Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran’s of Civil Aviation Organisation told a state-run media outlet.

Talk about a 180

Somehow, someway, the US and Trump will be partially blamed for ‘elite’ Iranian forces shooting down a slow 737 taking off from an international airport.

I am of the opinion that if you cannot identify a lumbering commercial airliner climbing out of an international airport, on one of the known runway headings of that airport, then perhaps you should not be given sophisticated ground-to-air missiles to play with. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 1/10/2020 at 12:56 AM, DayTrader said:

AMERICANS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED GUNS AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THEM ALL TAKEN AWAY ! 

We will one day fly over Britain and drop hand guns and ammo sufficient to have a few in every home. The same throughout the EU. People should have an easy time overthrowing their governments.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Reagan would've been proud of Trump's Iran strike

President Trump's critics are calling his military strike against Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani reckless and provocative, but there is one man who would have been enormously proud of his decision: Ronald Reagan.

In taking out Soleimani, Trump took a page out of the Reagan playbook.

In Reagan's time, the premier state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East was Moammar Gaddafi's Libya. Much like Trump has with Iran, Reagan imposed crippling sanctions on Gaddafi's terrorist regime. And after Libyan-backed terrorists killed five Americans in Rome and Vienna, Reagan drew a red line, warning Gaddafi that the United States would hold him fully accountable for any further attacks on U.S. citizens.

Like Iran today, Gaddafi ignored the president's red line.  ...

 

...  The United States, Reagan said, would not "ignore, by inaction, the slaughter of American civilians and American soldiers," adding, "when our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, on the direct orders of a hostile regime, we will respond, so long as I'm in this Oval Office." And he warned Gaddafi: "Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again."

Trump's Soleimani strike was a Reagan-esque move.

Like Reagan, Trump drew a red line, warning Iran that if it killed an American, it would be held accountable. Like Reagan, Trump enforced that red line. Like Reagan, Trump launched a decapitation strike against the terrorist leader responsible for the death of an American. And like Reagan, Trump warned Iran that if necessary, his administration would not hesitate to act again.  ...

 

[Papillon + 485]

59 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

We will one day fly over Britain and drop hand guns and ammo sufficient to have a few in every home. The same throughout the EU. People should have an easy time overthrowing their governments.

Presumably users here and all the gun owners overthrew their government when they took issue with it did they sir? Or were they complaining about previous presidents instead, just as they appear to today, and the handgun factor made no difference whatsoever? I believe it is the latter of the two with respect.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am of the opinion that if you cannot identify a lumbering commercial airliner climbing out of an international airport, on one of the known runway headings of that airport, then perhaps you should not be given sophisticated ground-to-air missiles to play with. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

21 hours ago, SERWIN said:

Money comes in and there are responsibilities that are to be taken care of with that money, and it should be treated that way. When not enough money comes in then things should be cut until the business is not running in the red. First thing should be the welfare state that has been built over the last couple of decades....

Overall I agree. Although I would think the military industrial complex should be dealt with before social programs. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Overall I agree. Although I would the military industrial complex should be dealt with before social programs. 

Huh? What topic are you on?