Has Trump even tweeted anything yet? Can one of you check please? (I refuse to

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

sully myself by signing up for Twitter).

[Burney]

sully myself by signing up for Twitter).

He's tweeted loads. He started by just tweeting a big Stars and Stripes, then tweeted 'Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!'. More recently, he's said: 'General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number...of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!'

I love him, h. He's just brilliant.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

He's tweeted loads. He started by just tweeting a big Stars and Stripes, then tweeted 'Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!'. More recently, he's said: 'General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number...of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!'

I love him, h. He's just brilliant.

He is possibly brilliant in the way an idiot savant is brilliant b. He doesn't mean to be brilliant though.

I think the subtext of the strike is the demonstration that the US now has technology that leaves no hiding place for its enemies. I am technically quite savvy but the precision of this attack has surprised me.

[Burney]

He is possibly brilliant in the way an idiot savant is brilliant b. He doesn't mean to be brilliant though.

I think the subtext of the strike is the demonstration that the US now has technology that leaves no hiding place for its enemies. I am technically quite savvy but the precision of this attack has surprised me.

To be fair, it sends many messages, not the least of which is 'Chat shít, get banged'.

However, the strong suggestion that there's high-level Humint involved will have Johnny Persian chasing his tail and with any luck will lead to a certain amount of bloodletting in Tehran's corridors of power.

[bbrian]

I am technically quite savvy but the precision of this attack has surprised me.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you felt the same way H when they introduced those air blaster thingys to unblock toilets...

[Burney]

I am technically quite savvy but the precision of this attack has surprised me.

I'm sure you felt the same way H when they introduced those air blaster thingys to unblock toilets...[/QUOTE]

:hehe: I must admit that I thought of h over Christmas, when one of my stepsons, having eaten little but meat, potatoes and chocolate for three days, deposited something of such ungodly dimensions and density in the downstairs lavatory that it blocked it instantly.

Thankfully, the thing eventually dispersed of its own accord, but it was a bad moment.

[WES]

To be fair, it sends many messages, not the least of which is 'Chat shít, get banged'.

However, the strong suggestion that there's high-level Humint involved will have Johnny Persian chasing his tail and with any luck will lead to a certain amount of bloodletting in Tehran's corridors of power.

And if Iranian backed terrorists blow themselves up in markets around Europe because of this, will you still think it was a good idea?

It's easy to support a killing right after the killing when the fallout is unclear. It satisfies a basic, savage instinct that appeals to many, certainly the people that support Trump.

This strikes me now as a very stupid thing to do, however I would like to think that the Americans have some intelligence which suggests that Iranian escalation is very unlikely.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

To be fair, it sends many messages, not the least of which is 'Chat shít, get banged'.

However, the strong suggestion that there's high-level Humint involved will have Johnny Persian chasing his tail and with any luck will lead to a certain amount of bloodletting in Tehran's corridors of power.

Humint! I had to look that up b. Be good enough to restrict yourself to established english please. I suspect Humint is some kind of ghastly americanism.

[Sir C]

And if Iranian backed terrorists blow themselves up in markets around Europe because of this, will you still think it was a good idea?

It's easy to support a killing right after the killing when the fallout is unclear. It satisfies a basic, savage instinct that appeals to many, certainly the people that support Trump.

This strikes me now as a very stupid thing to do, however I would like to think that the Americans have some intelligence which suggests that Iranian escalation is very unlikely.

You seem to be suggesting that it's a stupid thing to do because there may be consequences, but surely at some point one must act against violence and intimidation, whatever the consequences?

One might say that it's easy to support appeasement when the bad things aren't happening in your back garden. It satisfies a basic, cowardly instinct that appeals to many, expecially the short-sighted. But at some point that tiger is going to turn and bite you anyway, so you might as well have a go at containing it if you see a possibility.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

:hehe: I must admit that I thought of h over Christmas, when one of my stepsons, having eaten little but meat, potatoes and chocolate for three days, deposited something of such ungodly dimensions and density in the downstairs lavatory that it blocked it instantly.

Thankfully, the thing eventually dispersed of its own accord, but it was a bad moment

Then why on earth didn't you message me man? I would have hurtled around, broken the offending article's back in no time, shared a tumbler of your finest malt and set about your wife's fanny like the lusty old working class bull I am.

[Burney]

And if Iranian backed terrorists blow themselves up in markets around Europe because of this, will you still think it was a good idea?

It's easy to support a killing right after the killing when the fallout is unclear. It satisfies a basic, savage instinct that appeals to many, certainly the people that support Trump.

This strikes me now as a very stupid thing to do, however I would like to think that the Americans have some intelligence which suggests that Iranian escalation is very unlikely.

:hehe: Do you really think these people need an excuse to blow themselves up in markets around Europe?

I'm afraid yours is typical of the failed, weak, appeasing view that we in the West mustn't dare react to any outrage perpetrated against us because we might - gulp - provoke them into doing the stuff they're already doing anyway.

The Iranians explicitly violated a US Embassy. What response ought the US have made? A stiffly-worded letter? A complaint to the UN? Balls to that. Malleting the c@nt in full public view will give them very serious pause for thought before they try anything.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

You seem to be suggesting that it's a stupid thing to do because there may be consequences, but surely at some point one must act against violence and intimidation, whatever the consequences?

One might say that it's easy to support appeasement when the bad things aren't happening in your back garden. It satisfies a basic, cowardly instinct that appeals to many, expecially the short-sighted. But at some point that tiger is going to turn and bite you anyway, so you might as well have a go at containing it if you see a possibility.

Short sighted canadian yella-bellies at any rate.

[Sir C]

Short sighted canadian yella-bellies at any rate.

Trudeau fanboys.

[Burney]

Then why on earth didn't you message me man? I would have hurtled around, broken the offending article's back in no time, shared a tumbler of your finest malt and set about your wife's fanny like the lusty old working class bull I am.

I assure you that, had it not left of its own accord, I'd have been open to virtually any offer.

[Burney]

Trudeau fanboys.

:nod: I imagine WES's PM's response would have been to apply a bit of dark tan to his face, pop on a turban and nip over to Tehran to apologise for being such a ghastly Westerner.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I assure you that, had it not left of its own accord, I'd have been open to virtually any offer.

Who was that irascible little jewish fellow that used to post here. Tried to get me interested in fitting him with a new boiler and when I cracked my usual joke about boning his missus he told me if I gave him a decent discount I could also wipe my cock on his curtains after. :hehe:

[Burney]

Who was that irascible little jewish fellow that used to post here. Tried to get me interested in fitting him with a new boiler and when I cracked my usual joke about boning his missus he told me if I gave him a decent discount I could also wipe my cock on his curtains after. :hehe:

DRFC or the other one? The one Sir C was on about just before Christmas and whose handle I've already forgotten again?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

DRFC or the other one? The one Sir C was on about just before Christmas and whose handle I've already forgotten again?


It was so long ago that I fear even were you to get his handle right it has passed entirely from my memory. We no longer appear to have the full members list anywhere either.

[WES]

:nod: I imagine WES's PM's response would have been to apply a bit of dark tan to his face, pop on a turban and nip over to Tehran to apologise for being such a ghastly Westerner.

He's not my PM :nono: Even had I still been in Canada he wouldn't have been my choice.

And I'm not saying the West can never respond, you just need to be careful when you do. Violence begets violence after all.

The question really is whether or not *this* killing was worth it. It was the equivalent of an anti-Western country assassinating the Vice-President of the United States. There would outrage (quite rightly) all over the world had that happened. Iran is struggling massively given the sanctions in place. If this escalates and we have an increase in stability (political and economic) and an increase in violence, will it really have been worth it?

As I said, if the Americans have intelligence indicating that escalation is very unlikely then I can understand it. If not, this strikes me as really, really stupid. Do you really think the Iranians are going to be less hostile, less violent because we assassinated their second in command? Really?

[Burney]

He's not my PM :nono: Even had I still been in Canada he wouldn't have been my choice.

And I'm not saying the West can never respond, you just need to be careful when you do. Violence begets violence after all.

The question really is whether or not *this* killing was worth it. It was the equivalent of an anti-Western country assassinating the Vice-President of the United States. There would outrage (quite rightly) all over the world had that happened. Iran is struggling massively given the sanctions in place. If this escalates and we have an increase in stability (political and economic) and an increase in violence, will it really have been worth it?

As I said, if the Americans have intelligence indicating that escalation is very unlikely then I can understand it. If not, this strikes me as really, really stupid. Do you really think the Iranians are going to be less hostile, less violent because we assassinated their second in command? Really?

That is nonsense. As far as I'm aware, Mike Pence is not directly responsible for directing the USA's military operations in the Middle East and is not directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American and British soldiers. Neither, as far as I'm aware, has he directed attacks against foreign embassies or commanded the blowing up of a Saudi oil field.

The idea that this guy was just some politician is utterly ludicrous. He was described as "the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today" by the CIA and is a direct combatant against US personnel and interests. His killing was wholly justified.

[Burney]

He's not my PM :nono: Even had I still been in Canada he wouldn't have been my choice.

And I'm not saying the West can never respond, you just need to be careful when you do. Violence begets violence after all.

The question really is whether or not *this* killing was worth it. It was the equivalent of an anti-Western country assassinating the Vice-President of the United States. There would outrage (quite rightly) all over the world had that happened. Iran is struggling massively given the sanctions in place. If this escalates and we have an increase in stability (political and economic) and an increase in violence, will it really have been worth it?

As I said, if the Americans have intelligence indicating that escalation is very unlikely then I can understand it. If not, this strikes me as really, really stupid. Do you really think the Iranians are going to be less hostile, less violent because we assassinated their second in command? Really?

If you want to know who this bloke was (and how wildly inaccurate the Vice President comparison is) read this.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander

[WES]

That is nonsense. As far as I'm aware, Mike Pence is not directly responsible for directing the USA's military operations in the Middle East and is not directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American and British soldiers. Neither, as far as I'm aware, has he directed attacks against foreign embassies or commanded the blowing up of a Saudi oil field.

The idea that this guy was just some politician is utterly ludicrous. He was described as "the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today" by the CIA and is a direct combatant against US personnel and interests. His killing was wholly justified.

He's been described as the second most powerful man in Iran. If you don't like the VP comparison how about the Secretary for Defence? Or the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It was an assassination of the senior member of their establishment/military who is not a member of a recognised terrorist organisation, has not been charged with anything by any credible body etc etc.

You're being disingenuous and you know it. And you've avoided the two main points. 1) if this does result in a significant escalation including instability and violence will you really argue that one man's death was worth this? One man who can easily be replaced, possibly with someone worse? And 2) do you really think Iran is more likely to be less hostile, less violent because of this?

I think you know the answer to those two questions and are ignoring them so that you can revel in his death. Which strikes me as short term thinking. This was Trump at his worst.

[Burney]

He's been described as the second most powerful man in Iran. If you don't like the VP comparison how about the Secretary for Defence? Or the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It was an assassination of the senior member of their establishment/military who is not a member of a recognised terrorist organisation, has not been charged with anything by any credible body etc etc.

You're being disingenuous and you know it. And you've avoided the two main points. 1) if this does result in a significant escalation including instability and violence will you really argue that one man's death was worth this? One man who can easily be replaced, possibly with someone worse? And 2) do you really think Iran is more likely to be less hostile, less violent because of this?

I think you know the answer to those two questions and are ignoring them so that you can revel in his death. Which strikes me as short term thinking. This was Trump at his worst.

He was an enemy combatant who clearly considered himself at war with the US and its allies and operated accordingly. He had been allowed to live this long, but clearly an attack on a US Embassy had to be answered for and there was no more effective means of doing so than to kill the man who commanded it (they actually wrote their allegiance to him on the embassy walls, ffs!).

As for 'What if it makes things worse?' Well what if doing nothing emboldened them to undertake even more ambitious and bloody attacks on the US and its allies? And, since we're doing unknowables, what if it makes things better by getting Iran to wind its fúcking neck in and stop killing people? And yes, I do think the latter scenario is extremely likely.

[WES]

He was an enemy combatant who clearly considered himself at war with the US and its allies and operated accordingly. He had been allowed to live this long, but clearly an attack on a US Embassy had to be answered for and there was no more effective means of doing so than to kill the man who commanded it (they actually wrote their allegiance to him on the embassy walls, ffs!).

As for 'What if it makes things worse?' Well what if doing nothing emboldened them to undertake even more ambitious and bloody attacks on the US and its allies? And, since we're doing unknowables, what if it makes things better by getting Iran to wind its fúcking neck in and stop killing people? And yes, I do think the latter scenario is extremely likely.

He was not an enemy combatant - he was a general in the military of a country which is not at war with the United States. Regardless of what they thought of him and his actions, that has to be respected.

We could play what if scenarios all day and not really get anywhere. My main point is that it is far too early to be considering this a success, it could turn out very badly for everyone and one Iranian general is not worth that risk. Past history suggests strongly that Iran is not going to buckle because of this, quite the opposite. Sanctions are having their impact, an impact which may have just been undone by assassinating someone.

Madness imo.

[Burney]

He was not an enemy combatant - he was a general in the military of a country which is not at war with the United States. Regardless of what they thought of him and his actions, that has to be respected.

We could play what if scenarios all day and not really get anywhere. My main point is that it is far too early to be considering this a success, it could turn out very badly for everyone and one Iranian general is not worth that risk. Past history suggests strongly that Iran is not going to buckle because of this, quite the opposite. Sanctions are having their impact, an impact which may have just been undone by assassinating someone.

Madness imo.

He was general in the Iranian military who was in a foreign country conducting military operations. He'd just come back from Lebanon, where he was also conducting military operations. So tell me this: why was it OK for him to conduct these operations outside his home country and against the interests and allies of the US, but not for the US to act against him?

Killing him was a way for the US to make emphatically clear that it would not continue to tolerate Iran's (and specifically Suleimani's) actions against it. To show weakness in the face of such provocations would have been disastrous. Iran now knows it cannot act against the US with impunity and that Trump isn't bluffing. That will temper its behaviour.

[WES]

He was general in the Iranian military who was in a foreign country conducting military operations. He'd just come back from Lebanon, where he was also conducting military operations. So tell me this: why was it OK for him to conduct these operations outside his home country and against the interests and allies of the US, but not for the US to act against him?

Killing him was a way for the US to make emphatically clear that it would not continue to tolerate Iran's (and specifically Suleimani's) actions against it. To show weakness in the face of such provocations would have been disastrous. Iran now knows it cannot act against the US with impunity and that Trump isn't bluffing. That will temper its behaviour.

You honestly think that the Americans (or anyone else) can positively influence a countries actions by assassinating members of their military?

Naive is the nicest word I can think of for that view.

And he's been in this role for years, why now? And what next? Russian generals? Putin hasn't been playing ball recently, let's teach them a lesson as well.

It's insanely stupid.

[Burney]

You honestly think that the Americans (or anyone else) can positively influence a countries actions by assassinating members of their military?

Naive is the nicest word I can think of for that view.

And he's been in this role for years, why now? And what next? Russian generals? Putin hasn't been playing ball recently, let's teach them a lesson as well.

It's insanely stupid.

Yes, I do. Particularly when that general is the prime mover behind most of that country's offensive operations.

I don't think you grasp just what a big player this guy was. He was not just some general. He was Iran's foreign policy kingpin and was considered virtually invincible. In a single blow, the US has just neatly decapitated Iran's foreign military operations.

As for the Putin comparison, Russia's forces are not engaged in warfare (covert or overt) against the US. Iran's are. Russia has not violated a US Embassy or killed US personnel. Iran has. Both those things made this guy a legitimate target.

[redgunamo]

Well, not anymore anyway. Not since Khasham.


Russia's forces are not engaged in warfare (covert or overt) against the US.

[Burney]

Well, not anymore anyway. Not since Khasham.

Ah, there you are! I take it you approve of the Donald's work in this instance?

[redgunamo]

Absolutely.

The man is quite good at this game. I know because I'm quite good at this game.


Ah, there you are! I take it you approve of the Donald's work in this instance?

[Burney]

Absolutely.

The man is quite good at this game. I know because I'm quite good at this game.

[QUOTES=Burney;4254896]Ah, there you are! I take it you approve of the Donald's work in this instance?

Yes. He seems to have freely adapted Teddy Roosevelt's dictum to 'Shout a lot and carry a big stick with which you occasionally give miscreants a damn good thrashing'. Quite Palmerstonian, really.

[redgunamo]

And he's even getting us out of Iraq now. lol.

Surely no evil-doers will fall for that one again, so soon after the last time :rubchin:



Yes. He seems to have freely adapted Teddy Roosevelt's dictum to 'Shout a lot and carry a big stick with which you occasionally give miscreants a damn good thrashing'. Quite Palmerstonian, really.