(01-09-2020, 12:50 PM)Au165 Wrote: I can't tell if you are serious or if this is tongue in cheek.
I'm serious. Everyone around here said it was symbolic so that they can say they did something to their people and not worth a response.
WRONG! Per Pence. Their attack was meant to kill and maim.
So why say that if Americans were comforted in defeat by the idea Iran meant no harm and it was symbolic? Not worthy of response even if it meant backing down under threat?
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(01-09-2020, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There's no "focusing on semantics" hell many Dems came away saying they didn't know whether or not there was imminent danger. To say the GOP came away from the meeting suggesting their was no imminent danger is not semantics; it's false. Or as some may say "fake news".
Sounds like you’re moving goal posts. Benton said “From Republicans”. Paul and Lee are Republicans.
You then said that you saw no Republican say that there was no threat. You painted them as merely “unhappy” and asked to point out a Republican doubting the threat.
I did. Paul clearly said that the administration showed no specific threat. Lee implied it heavily.
In my opinion Iran is lying about this. The fact that they were so quick to say the crash happened "due to technical difficulties" is a red flag. Then the refusal to hand over the black boxes. I feel that a cover up is underway. This is a very serious matter and someone needs to be held accountable for the 176 people who lost their lives.
(01-09-2020, 02:08 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm serious. Everyone around here said it was symbolic so that they can say they did something to their people and not worth a response.
WRONG! Per Pence. Their attack was meant to kill and maim.
So why say that if Americans were comforted in defeat by the idea Iran meant no harm and it was symbolic? Not worthy of response even if it meant backing down under threat?
So you, who always says the administration does nothing but lie, have now decided to believe them for this instance? I choose to believe the multiple other sources including foreign sources who have all said the Iranians intentionally leaked their plans to prevent, or limit, casualties.
(01-09-2020, 02:50 PM)Au165 Wrote: So you, who always says the administration does nothing but lie, have now decided to believe them for this instance? I choose to believe the multiple other sources including foreign sources who have all said the Iranians intentionally leaked their plans to prevent, or limit, casualties.
I don't know really.
But what I do know is America told them not to retaliate or hell will be paid and they did less than a week later.
Iran told America not to retaliate or hell will be paid and we listened.
For the history books that will be considered a loss. And I for one don't like it. Maybe I'm the only one around here. But I'll be the only one if I have to.
I don't like this Administration, but I'm American and this should have ended on our terms.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(01-09-2020, 02:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: In my opinion Iran is lying about this. The fact that they were so quick to say the crash happened "due to technical difficulties" is a red flag. Then the refusal to hand over the black boxes. I feel that a cover up is underway. This is a very serious matter and someone needs to be held accountable for the 176 people who lost their lives.
Something does seem fishy. Hopefully more comes out to get to the bottom of it.
I'm wondering if their initial report about casualty's came from this?
I know these countries under dictatorships lie to their people, but to claim over 80 causalities from the attack just seems like an extreme lie given surely we would have answered if it was the case.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(01-09-2020, 03:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't know really.
But what I do know is America told them not to retaliate or hell will be paid and they did less than a week later.
Iran told America not to retaliate or hell will be paid and we listened.
For the history books that will be considered a loss. And I for one don't like it. Maybe I'm the only one around here. But I'll be the only one if I have to.
I don't like this Administration, but I'm American and this should have ended on our terms.
This attitude is how political posturing evolves into people getting killed. No "history book" will care about this because no American lives were lost over it. Why should it end on our terms? Because we are America? This way of thinking is narcissistic but yet many Americans still think this way. We are not rulers of the world, we are not above the law, and we are not the moral authority. We need to get over ourselves and understand we can turn the other cheek and walk away at times rather than throwing billions of dollars and countless lives at something for nothing more than a flex.
(01-08-2020, 12:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I hate to go off topic, but I found it amusing that the vast majority of people I saw on my facebook feed cheering on Ricky Gervais after he said no one wants to hear about politics from Hollywood were people who voted for a grossly unqualified reality TV star for President.
Going back on topic, we've seen for years how inept his foreign policy has been, especially with all of the vacancies in key intelligence, military, and diplomatic positions. I wish I could have the optimism that I see from so many that someone with zero foreign policy and/or military experience that absolutely bundled North Korea is some absolute genius when it comes to these things, playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.
God damn, I hope someone competent is making these decisions in one calendar year.
I hadn't heard this so went and looked it up. Where did that come from? That was a seven minute ass kicking.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(01-09-2020, 02:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sounds like you’re moving goal posts. Benton said “From Republicans”. Paul and Lee are Republicans.
You then said that you saw no Republican say that there was no threat. You painted them as merely “unhappy” and asked to point out a Republican doubting the threat.
I did. Paul clearly said that the administration showed no specific threat. Lee implied it heavily.
There's no moving the goalpost there is a logical fallacy in place known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam"
Person A: "What did you think of the briefing"
Person B: "It was terrible in content, they spoke in generalizations and failed to share specifics that constituted the POTUS' actions"
Person A: "Person B feels there was nothing to support POTUS' actions"
It's taking an absence of information (ignorance) and using it to draw a conclusion where none was given.
I'll accept responsibility for being overly abrasive in a few of my retorts, but there is no intellectual dishonesty (on my part), moving the goalpost, or focus on semantics. It was simply pointing something asserted that was not.
(01-09-2020, 02:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: In my opinion Iran is lying about this. The fact that they were so quick to say the crash happened "due to technical difficulties" is a red flag. Then the refusal to hand over the black boxes. I feel that a cover up is underway. This is a very serious matter and someone needs to be held accountable for the 176 people who lost their lives.
Sen. Lee to NPR: "I literally find it difficult to imagine how my friend Marco [Rubio], who is smart, who listens carefully, who cares about these things, how he could emerge from that meeting at say that it was good. It was terrible. It was an unmitigated disaster.”
(01-09-2020, 02:47 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: In my opinion Iran is lying about this. The fact that they were so quick to say the crash happened "due to technical difficulties" is a red flag. Then the refusal to hand over the black boxes. I feel that a cover up is underway. This is a very serious matter and someone needs to be held accountable for the 176 people who lost their lives.
(01-09-2020, 04:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: Something does seem fishy. Hopefully more comes out to get to the bottom of it.
I'm wondering if their initial report about casualty's came from this?
I know these countries under dictatorships lie to their people, but to claim over 80 causalities from the attack just seems like an extreme lie given surely we would have answered if it was the case.
(01-09-2020, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This appears to be a terrible tragedy. The question is; What should be done if it is determined to been taken out by an Iranian missile accidentally.
They pay $150 Million (adjusted for inflation) to the families like we did when we shot down an Iranian passenger jet.
(01-09-2020, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This appears to be a terrible tragedy. The question is; What should be done if it is determined to been taken out by an Iranian missile accidentally.
That's between Ukraine and Iran.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(01-09-2020, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's no moving the goalpost there is a logical fallacy in place known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam"
Person A: "What did you think of the briefing"
Person B: "It was terrible in content, they spoke in generalizations and failed to share specifics that constituted the POTUS' actions"
Person A: "Person B feels there was nothing to support POTUS' actions"
It's taking an absence of information (ignorance) and using it to draw a conclusion where none was given.
I'll accept responsibility for being overly abrasive in a few of my retorts, but there is no intellectual dishonesty (on my part), moving the goalpost, or focus on semantics. It was simply pointing something asserted that was not.
Wow, lol. I only have myself to blame for engaging you in good faith.
(01-09-2020, 04:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: Something does seem fishy. Hopefully more comes out to get to the bottom of it.
I'm wondering if their initial report about casualty's came from this?
I know these countries under dictatorships lie to their people, but to claim over 80 causalities from the attack just seems like an extreme lie given surely we would have answered if it was the case.
There's now a video clearly showing something blowing up near the plane.
Thinking about all this today and just had this thought:
My wife was pregnant with our second child when 9/11 happened. I remember laying in bed talking with her as we watched the news and wondering what kind of world we were bringing another child into.
He turned 18 today and not only are we STILL at war over 9/11 now we don't know if there will be an extension of that war in a third country. One that he could conceivably have to fight in if they would be crazy enough to try and reinstitute the draft.
Crazy.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
