JUST IN: SHOCK ADAM SCHIFF REVELATION – THIS IS SICK

[roamer_1]

So, yes, we did have that ability, at least in some instances, but chose not to use it.

No doubt, where possible, and where there was a big enough stink to preserve it... Till the stink wore thin due to necessity. But I would wager one could find thousands of cultural sites that were just mowed over, and many more that were hit by mistake. Which was my point. Carpet bombing is a whole lot less discriminating than what we can do today.

[roamer_1]

They did. They didn't throw much, nor very hard, just enough so they could walk away and not slink in shame.

I do not share your confidence that is the end of it.

The Iranians have been signalling their intention to fight for decades, now, over 40 years.
Trump has just said, "enough", and (unlike predecessors) signaled what he is willing to do to stop the crap.

We shall see. I do not think they will stop at all... They've got a 40 year grudge on. That kind of blood feud don't just go away.

Don't get me wrong - I hope you are right - but to think of this without an intent of war, and that the hero just smacked down the pipsqueak bully... Well, that's just too much lollipops and rainbows for me to believe.

[Victoria33]

Trying to make war antiseptic is lunacy. By creating the idea that war can be waged and only bad guys get killed leads people to believe war is acceptable. War should be recognized for what it is; brutal, deadly and innocents are killed. If we recognize war for what it is we might not have to fight as many and those that we do have to fight we can win with fewer of our guys getting killed or injured.

Thanks for your post - it should be at the top of this thread and posted on every "page".
Members here wanting to bomb/slay Iran are not seeing into the future if a major war breaks out.  And, this time, the killing/damage could be in our country.

[Chosen Daughter]

Thanks for your post - it should be at the top of this thread and posted on every "page".
Members here wanting to bomb/slay Iran are not seeing into the future if a major war breaks out.  And, this time, the killing/damage could be in our country.

What would you like to do in an imminent threat situation with a terrorist state like Iran?  I think that it was very appropriate.  And projecting strength is exactly what was needed here.  But I don't like Trumps stupidity to mention cultural sites.  Once you do that it is an attack on the people of Iran, not the government.  I don't care how anybody wants to spin it he was stupid.  You can't say you don't want war and threaten to blow up cultural sites.

[Smokin Joe]

I do not share your confidence that is the end of it.

We shall see. I do not think they will stop at all... They've got a 40 year grudge on. That kind of blood feud don't just go away.

Don't get me wrong - I hope you are right - but to think of this without an intent of war, and that the hero just smacked down the pipsqueak bully... Well, that's just too much lollipops and rainbows for me to believe.

Will terrorism End? Likely not. It's the islamists' stock in trade.

Will Iran take on the US? Not in the short term, anyway. Much depends on whether we let them continue with their ICBM and nuclear program. We'll see.

For now, though, a very nasty and formidable opponent, who has been present through the entire 4 decades of Iranian Islamism, and a key player in international terror campaigns, is off the field, permanently. That can't be a bad thing.

[EasyAce]

But I don't like Trumps stupidity to mention cultural sites.  Once you do that it is an attack on the people of Iran, not the government.  I don't care how anybody wants to spin it he was stupid.  You can't say you don't want war and threaten to blow up cultural sites.

@Chosen Daughter

I say again---if it comes to that, target and destroy the critical military installations. (Did the world learn nothing the day Saddam Hussein's proclamation that Iraq's then-new nuclear reactor would be used to forge weapons against Israel was answered by Israeli jets bombing the reactor into oblivion and then getting the hell out of there post haste?) I'm all in on that, if it comes to that.

But cultural sites? Until or unless there's verifiable intelligence that an Iran is really thinking nothing of posting military people and equipment inside them (funny thing: these days, we're supposed to despise the intelligence community until we're not!), lay the hell off. Especially when you consider that the citizens of governments who've made themselves into enemies of the United States are likely no more enthralled by their own governments than are we of those governments, and that those cultural sites---whatever they are---mean as much to those citizens as our own cultural sites mean to us.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks for your post - it should be at the top of this thread and posted on every "page".
Members here wanting to bomb/slay Iran are not seeing into the future if a major war breaks out.  And, this time, the killing/damage could be in our country.

Apparently it's forgotten we already have had killing and damage in our country. 

[EdinVA]

Thanks for your post - it should be at the top of this thread and posted on every "page".
Members here wanting to bomb/slay Iran are not seeing into the future if a major war breaks out.  And, this time, the killing/damage could be in our country.

If not now, when?
How long should "civilized" nations tolerate their citizens murder?
How many more kids will be beheaded, raped, suicide bombers before we stand up?
It is already bloody, it just has not hit your neighborhood yet, but it will...
We have gone from being an open, fairly happy society to a closed, suspicious society unhappy with pretty much all that is going on.
Since 911 we can no longer walk into ANY government building, we can no longer board an aircraft without being subjected to cavity searches,  law enforcement is more cynical than ever and teat everyone with suspicion. 


Not advocating war, just peace.

[Wingnut]

Apparently it's forgotten we already have had killing and damage in our country. 

You mean when some people did something?  Or something more recent?   

[sneakypete]

Will terrorism End? Likely not. It's the islamists' stock in trade.

Will Iran take on the US? Not in the short term, anyway. Much depends on whether we let them continue with their ICBM and nuclear program. We'll see.

 

@Smokin Joe

The BIGGEST indicator will be the 2020 US Presidential elections.

If the Dims win,it's back to the terrorism war.

If Trump wins,and ESPECIALLY if Trump wins and the Republicans take over control of the House again,the fundie Muslims will be as quiet as little mice.

[Cyber Liberty]

You mean when some people did something?  Or something more recent?   

People who weren't even born when some people did something are now old enough to vote Democrat.  Or, short of that, agitate for more Democrat rule.

It's patently obvious (to even the most casual of observers) that, as a nation, we forgot about 9/11 in the short seven years it took to elect a Moslem President.  More recent than 911, he oversaw the deaths of more American GIs than civilians who were killed that sunny September Tuesday. 

[EdinVA]

What happened to us?



Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Chosen Daughter

I say again---if it comes to that, target and destroy the critical military installations. (Did the world learn nothing the day Saddam Hussein's proclamation that Iraq's then-new nuclear reactor would be used to forge weapons against Israel was answered by Israeli jets bombing the reactor into oblivion and then getting the hell out of there post haste?) I'm all in on that, if it comes to that.

But cultural sites? Until or unless there's verifiable intelligence that an Iran is really thinking nothing of posting military people and equipment inside them (funny thing: these days, we're supposed to despise the intelligence community until we're not!), lay the hell off. Especially when you consider that the citizens of governments who've made themselves into enemies of the United States are likely no more enthralled by their own governments than are we of those governments, and that those cultural sites---whatever they are---mean as much to those citizens as our own cultural sites mean to us.

Could it be incomprehensible to you that Trump's warning, no action I remind you just a warning, is to prevent the 'cultural sites' being used for military purposes?

Stop and think before you write once again.

What possible benefit is it to us to only react when cultural sites are used against us rather than to warn in advance what our response will be when they are used?

I prefer to kill people wishing to kill us rather than to just be killed due to us being overly nice.  Do you really call that barbaric, illegal of us?

[jafo2010]

I think that the Dems have lost their way with their inability to offer the American people anything.  Their primary focus is protecting illegal invading aliens, defending and wanting to protect known terrorists like Solemani, propping up a healthcare system that was never viable (I know for I helped to implement it in one state, and it was a true POS), etc.

And on top of that, they have an avowed communist who may very well win the nomination.  And these fools would be on the opposite side of anything regarding Trump.  If Hitler were alive today, the Dems would defend Hitler if Trump showed opposition.

War is ugly, rotten business, but it is part of the fabric of humanity.  Islam is not a peaceful entity, it is a system that forced people with the sword through the centuries to be adhered to.  They ran through the men and enslaved the women and children.

Admiral Halsey was a no nonsense military leader when dealing with the enemy, and his enemy were the Japanese during WWII.   He made a speech in 1943 in San Francisco that I agree 100% with, and it could be applied to any enemy, even today with Iran.  He said, 'the only good Jap...is a Jap...that has been dead for six months or more.  In a country like Japan, where the civilian population supports the military as they do, the only good Jap civilian...is a Jap civilian...dead for six months or more.'

Well, we better get smart about the good muslim people.  I think it could be said that islam is the direct enemy of western civilization.  They oppose freedom, including in the countries we are allied with i.e. Saudi Arabia.  There is no religious freedom in that country, women have few freedoms, and tolerance in nonexistent. 

President Trump is not someone to take lightly.  He is not a tea and crumpets leader like Bush, or a traitor like Obama, he will deal with enemies decisively.  I think the attack on Solemani is as strong a warning Iran has received since Reagan was POTUS, and long overdue.  Iran is a rogue nation, who one cannot give an inch to.  Obama saw himself as an ally of Iran, and he empowered them to become the nation to reign in the hegemony within the region.  This is just one more thing Trump is having to contend with in terms of undoing what Obama did. 

What is troublesome is the efforts of the Democommies.  Iran sees what they are doing, and may think that might just contain Trump.  Huge mistake.  I see Iran continuing to escalate their efforts to kill Americans in the middle east, and I see Trump taking out military bases and possibly refineries, just like Reagan did. 

Watch for a green light for Israel to strike Iran hard too.  It is coming.

[EasyAce]

Could it be incomprehensible to you that Trump's warning, no action I remind you just a warning, is to prevent the 'cultural sites' being used for military purposes?

With another president, party or ideological stance regardless, it might just be that. With President Tweety it's a whole nother smoke, as the old commercial used to say. He shoots from the lip far too often to be given the benefit of the doubt. (And I quit giving presidents the benefits of the doubts a long enough time ago.)

What possible benefit is it to us to only react when cultural sites are used against us rather than to warn in advance what our response will be when they are used?

I did say, and I quote, Until or unless there's verifiable intelligence that an Iran is really posting military people and equipment inside them . . .

I prefer to kill people wishing to kill us rather than to just be killed due to us being overly nice.  Do you really call that barbaric, illegal of us?

Since it's their government that wishes to kill us (the people themselves are something else again, considering who knows how many governments around the world don't exactly allow their people to think and act of their own free will), I prefer taking out every last military installation they have, to erase for who knows how long (we can certainly hope) their ability to make war against us.

The collateral damage factor is always there, tragically, but collateral damage is far from the same thing as targeting non-military targets specifically. Absent the aforequoted verifiable intelligence that would indicate an ordinarily non-military facility is being used militarily, I reject absolutely targeting cultural institutions and, yes, other civilian enclaves.

There do come those times when war is unavoidable. But if a great power deploying today's technologies can't prosecute an unavoidable war without crossing the line between combat and murder, then that power still has much to learn and re-learn. A great power can break the military back of an adversary whose government is bent upon attacking it without breaking the country in question itself.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think that the Dems have lost their way with their inability to offer the American people anything.  Their primary focus is protecting illegal invading aliens, defending and wanting to protect known terrorists like Solemani, propping up a healthcare system that was never viable (I know for I helped to implement it in one state, and it was a true POS), etc.

And on top of that, they have an avowed communist who may very well win the nomination.  And these fools would be on the opposite side of anything regarding Trump.  If Hitler were alive today, the Dems would defend Hitler if Trump showed opposition.

War is ugly, rotten business, but it is part of the fabric of humanity.  Islam is not a peaceful entity, it is a system that forced people with the sword through the centuries to be adhered to.  They ran through the men and enslaved the women and children.

Admiral Halsey was a no nonsense military leader when dealing with the enemy, and his enemy were the Japanese during WWII.   He made a speech in 1943 in San Francisco that I agree 100% with, and it could be applied to any enemy, even today with Iran.  He said, 'the only good Jap...is a Jap...that has been dead for six months or more.  In a country like Japan, where the civilian population supports the military as they do, the only good Jap civilian...is a Jap civilian...dead for six months or more.'

Well, we better get smart about the good muslim people.  I think it could be said that islam is the direct enemy of western civilization.  They oppose freedom, including in the countries we are allied with i.e. Saudi Arabia.  There is no religious freedom in that country, women have few freedoms, and tolerance in nonexistent. 

President Trump is not someone to take lightly.  He is not a tea and crumpets leader like Bush, or a traitor like Obama, he will deal with enemies decisively.  I think the attack on Solemani is as strong a warning Iran has received since Reagan was POTUS, and long overdue.  Iran is a rogue nation, who one cannot give an inch to.  Obama saw himself as an ally of Iran, and he empowered them to become the nation to reign in the hegemony within the region.  This is just one more thing Trump is having to contend with in terms of undoing what Obama did. 

What is troublesome is the efforts of the Democommies.  Iran sees what they are doing, and may think that might just contain Trump.  Huge mistake.  I see Iran continuing to escalate their efforts to kill Americans in the middle east, and I see Trump taking out military bases and possibly refineries, just like Reagan did. 

Watch for a green light for Israel to strike Iran hard too.  It is coming.

In brief, the big difference between the Dems and someone like Halsey is summed up in one word:  Patriotism.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

With another president, party or ideological stance regardless, it might just be that. With President Tweety it's a whole nother smoke, as the old commercial used to say. He shoots from the lip far too often to be given the benefit of the doubt. (And I quit giving presidents the benefits of the doubts a long enough time ago.)
I did say, and I quote, Until or unless there's verifiable intelligence that an Iran is really posting military people and equipment inside them . . .
Since it's their government that wishes to kill us (the people themselves are something else again, considering who knows how many governments around the world don't exactly allow their people to think and act of their own free will), I prefer taking out every last military installation they have, to erase for who knows how long (we can certainly hope) their ability to make war against us.

The collateral damage factor is always there, tragically, but collateral damage is far from the same thing as targeting non-military targets specifically. Absent the aforequoted verifiable intelligence that would indicate an ordinarily non-military facility is being used militarily, I reject absolutely targeting cultural institutions and, yes, other civilian enclaves.

There do come those times when war is unavoidable. But if a great power deploying today's technologies can't prosecute an unavoidable war without crossing the line between combat and murder, then that power still has much to learn and re-learn. A great power can break the military back of an adversary whose government is bent upon attacking it without breaking the country in question itself.

You miss the entire point.

There is zero targeting of cultural sites.  It is a THREAT to target them to dissuade their usage militarily.

If you see no difference in that, then there is no chance you could ever be persuaded to see anything of reality.

[EasyAce]

It is a THREAT to target them to dissuade their usage militarily.

If someone doesn't get how horrible a look it is even to threaten to target them, which in moral terms may just as well be actually targeting them (and who's to say, really, that the targets haven't been determined minus the operating orders and minus, I repeat, verifiable evidence that they're being used militarily?), he or she should be pitied.

If someone does get how horrible a look it is and couldn't care less, anyway, for whatever perverse reasons, he or she should be condemned.

[EdinVA]

If someone doesn't get how horrible a look it is even to threaten to target them, which in moral terms may just as well be actually targeting them (and who's to say, really, that the targets haven't been determined minus the operating orders and minus, I repeat, verifiable evidence that they're being used militarily?), he or she should be pitied.

If someone does get how horrible a look it is and couldn't care less, anyway, for whatever perverse reasons, he or she should be condemned.

So your proposition is that war is moral?
I have to admit, I don't twitter, facebook or any of the other junk so what a politician says does not bother me but I watch what they do like a hawk and judge that.
If we start impeaching elected officials over twitter poop then we are in real trouble.

[Cyber Liberty]

Apparently "looking bad" is as bad as "being bad."   

Besides, it's Trump.  In your heart you know he's wrong.  Whatever the subject, he's that bad.

[EasyAce]

So your proposition is that war is moral?

There are moral wars, of course; I'm sure we'd agree that World War II was one such war when all was said and done. But I think we might agree, concurrently, that there is also moral conduct in war.

If there wasn't, we'd not have been so scandalised by the like of the Rape of Belgium (World War I), the Armenian Massacre (WWI), Franco's White Terror (the Spanish Civil War), myriad Nazi, Imperial Japanese, and Communist war crimes in World War II, the Seoul Nationial University Hospital Massacre and Hill 301 (Korean War, by North Korea), My Lai and Phong Nhi (Vietnam War), the Bangladesh Genocide (Pakistan, 1971), the Cambodian Civil War (I know, that's like referencing a "people's democratic republic"), and God the list goes deeper than those.

I have to admit, I don't twitter, facebook or any of the other junk so what a politician says does not bother me but I watch what they do like a hawk and judge that.

The further bad news is that you don't have to tweet or Facebook to know what one or another politician says, never mind what they do. Long before the advent of online social media we were only too aware that politicians' mouths were cesspools even deploying the least vulgar words or phrases while their deeds were often enough described in polite terms as grotesque.

If we start impeaching elected officials over twitter poop then we are in real trouble.

If it was only Twitterpoop that would be one thing. But---and this applies to any president who might have a taste for Twitterpating, not merely the incumbent to whom Twitter is as mother's milk---if particular tweetery implied things like abuse of power or sentiments arguably close to treason*, then it wouldn't be beyond the realm of imagination to think of impeachment.

(* One harks back to circa 1965, when then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, caught exasperated and in a testy mood, was asked about blood donations going to North Vietnamese. Kennedy's precise answer was, "I'd rather concentrate on the South Vietnamese, and those who need it, but I'm in favor of giving blood to anyone. (B)lood can be sent if it is clear that it is under the International Red Cross and not in violation of our statutes." The clarifiers notwithstanding, Kennedy wasn't immune from a thunderously prompt denunciation from then-Sen. Barry Goldwater, calling his remark "close to treason.")

[EasyAce]

Apparently "looking bad" is as bad as "being bad."   

You don't really need me to tell you there are those times when looking bad equals being bad, do you?

Besides, it's Trump.  In your heart you know he's wrong.

I prefer to think that in my guts, I know he's nuts. 

[Cyber Liberty]

You don't really need me to tell you there are those times when looking bad equals being bad, do you?
I prefer to think that in my guts, I know he's nuts. 

I can see the (non)distinction.   

But in the abstract, I wonder...if Twits from a politician can be impeachable, are there Twits in the Articles of Impeachment that are in limbo today?  Seems to me President Twitty has written an awful lot of Twits, should be a rich trove.

[EdinVA]

I can see the (non)distinction.   

But in the abstract, I wonder...if Twits from a politician can be impeachable, are there Twits in the Articles of Impeachment that are in limbo today?  Seems to me President Twitty has written an awful lot of Twits, should be a rich trove.

That made my brain hurt.... 

[Cyber Liberty]

That made my brain hurt.... 

Imagine how much it hurt writing that.