Tango01 | 28 Jun 2016 10:01 p.m. PST |
" Iran's semi-official Fars news agency says the Revolutionary Guard has killed 11 Kurdish insurgents and lost three of its own in two days of fighting. Fars, which is close to the Guard, said Tuesday that the battle erupted the day before after a two-day pursuit. It says Iranian forces had been monitoring the group for the past week near the town of Sarvabad in Iran's Kurdistan province. The report did not identify the insurgent group, calling them "counter-revolutionary bandits." Iranian forces have clashed with Kurdish separatists on a number of occasions this month. The Guard says it killed five insurgents on Saturday and 12 earlier this month in the West Azerbaijan province…" More here link Amicalement Armand |
cwlinsj | 29 Jun 2016 6:16 a.m. PST |
If any of this is true, which it may not, then it means that the chickens have come home to roost for Iran. They are now experiencing violence like had been happening in Iraq, Syria and Turkey with the Kurdish population. May be a sign of growing nationalism and rise of the Iranian Kurds. They make up 10% of the population of Iran and is the second largest grouping of Kurds in the region. I hope they give the IRG hell if this is the beginnings of a freedom movement. Might even destabilize the grip of the hard liners in Teheran. |
Ucalegos | 29 Jun 2016 8:39 a.m. PST |
Yes, because a destabilised Iran and another civil war is just what the region, and the world, needs, isn't it. |
cwlinsj | 29 Jun 2016 8:57 a.m. PST |
Yes. Since Iran is the primary force behind most of it. Turmoil within Iran will actually decrease the propagation and funding of war in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and terrorism throughout the entire world. The Kurds need their own country, and the Iranians need to be freed from the oppression of the ayatollahs. |
Legion 4 | 29 Jun 2016 9:04 a.m. PST |
Amen … With all the factions involved in this "moslem [un]civil war". You need colored jerseys with numbers and team rosters to figure out who is who and who is killing who. The reasons don't seems to matter much anymore … Both the Kurds and Iran see Daesh as an enemy. But as we see throughout the region. Old religious, ethnic, tribal, etc., hatreds and distain, etc., trumps all else. In many cases. That is one of the reasons Daesh is doing so well. The Arab/molsem nations can't seem to understand or get their acts together. That the best and maybe the only way to eliminated Daesh is a joint coalition of their forces. But this will never happen because they are so wedded to old hatreds, differences, etc., for each other that goes back decades if not 100s of years. And in the meantime …moslems are killing moslems as well as the "Infidel" … more blood spilled … with no end in sight … |
Ucalegos | 29 Jun 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
ISIS = Sunni Al Qaeda = Sunni Iran = Shia. You're right they're definitely behind it all. The idea that a civil war in Iran will reduce terrorism is totally and utterly bonkers. |
Legion 4 | 29 Jun 2016 10:03 a.m. PST |
I'm well aware that Daesh is Sunni and the Kurds are Sunni but don't believe the same … that is why they are trying to kill each other. And Yes, I know Iran is @ 90+ % Shia. The civil war is not Iran vs. anyone else. But it is a Sunni vs. Shia civil war. Plus as we see it goes beyond just Sunni vs. Shia. … My point was the divide among molsems seems to interfere with their need to defeat the greater enemy – Daesh. Regardless of which side they are on. You're right they're definitely behind it all. I didn't say that and I don't think anyone else meant that either ? But we all know, that Shia Iranian is one of the biggest sponsors of islamic terrorism on the planet along with the Sunni Saudis … Two heads of the serpent so to speak. |
Tango01 | 29 Jun 2016 10:12 a.m. PST |
Agree with cwlinsj! Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 29 Jun 2016 10:28 a.m. PST |
A pity the Kurds came off so badly in the exchange. Iran, once again, has won the dubious distinction of being the number one state sponsor of terrorism around the globe. Some have called for their mullahs to be over-thrown in order to help mitigate that circumstance a bit. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 11:46 a.m. PST |
cwlinsj wrote: Yes. Since Iran is the primary force behind most of it. Turmoil within Iran will actually decrease the propagation and funding of war in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and terrorism throughout the entire world. That will just leave the Saudis funding ISIL and their ilk and the Pakistanis supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So yes, of course hamstringing the people who are helping to fight ISIL is a very sensible approach, if one is a barking mad militarist who is bent on spreading destabilization, war and sectarianism/nationalism across the Middle East, Asia Minor and Persia. Perhaps there are more prudent approaches to containing the emerging power of Iran and limiting the proliferation of terrorism then overturning stability in Iran. Have we forgotten that the US Coalition invasion of Iraq delivered hegemony of the region on a silver platter with a bow on top to Iran. Whose interests and power will profit from destabilizing Iran? Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and non-state actors like terrorist groups will be the beneficiaries of such a policy and terrorism will only spread. A rethink may be in order here. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
zippyfusenet | 29 Jun 2016 2:00 p.m. PST |
Perhaps there are more prudent approaches to containing the emerging power of Iran and limiting the proliferation of terrorism Suggest a couple, willya? I'm all ears. |
Mako11 | 29 Jun 2016 2:03 p.m. PST |
Total economic embargo and naval blockade. The half-hearted one brought them to the negotiating table, but then that opportunity was blown. Won't stop the land trade, but will make it difficult for them to export oil to many countries. |
zippyfusenet | 29 Jun 2016 3:06 p.m. PST |
It would have to be something the US can do unilaterally, Mako, 'cuz I don't think we're going to get backing from the Russians, the Chinese or the EU on this one. I foresee a good chance that a unilateral US naval blockade could turn into a shooting war, where we might lose a lot of ships and sailors in a hurry, and be pushed to escalate beyond reason. Not a course to embark on lightly. Contrary to the proverb, sometimes endless horror is better than a horrible end, if you don't want to end, that is. |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 29 Jun 2016 4:15 p.m. PST |
"Iran, once again, has won the dubious distinction of being the number one state sponsor of terrorism around the globe." An unfounded but commonly recited statement from Fox News. We do not see Iran supporting ISIS but we have seen Turkey give cover to them. Iran didn't start Al-Qaeda or ISIS, both are Western creations. You may sincerely believe Iran is the center of it all but you're sincerely wrong. The proposition of a total blockade and embargo, how silly. If China says no, then what? Russia will also ignore such sanctions as will other countries such as Pakistan and North Korea (their other trading partners). Going to fight the start WWIII? The non stop warmongering really is old and tiresome. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 4:47 p.m. PST |
zippyfusenet: Suggest a couple, willya? I'm all ears. OK, but it may get me dawg-housed as it is in the realm of politics: 1) Talk to Iran and use diplomacy and negotiation to diffuse situations which arise. 2) Engage Iran politically, socially and economically. This will have the effect of gradually showing Iranians how materially and morally bankrupt their old-guard is and cause a gradual internal push away from theocracy and towards a more representative political system. 3) Work with Iran to solve regional problems and when Iran is instrumental in something give them credit and more tangible rewards. 4) Be prepared to listen to the Iranian state and talk through difficult issues regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. You do not have to abandon your allies but you need not be deaf either. 5) Engage Iranian proxies like Hezbollah and gradually move towards working out solutions which will reduce tension and terrorism in the region. By way of example persuading or pressuring Iran, Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, Israel and the USA to sit down and hammer out an agreement where Hezbollah agrees to end attacks on Israel if Israel agrees to respect Lebanese territorial sovereignty and air-space. This would likely break down on occasion so making a commitment to renegotiating such a deal repeatedly would be needed. 6) Explain and eventually demonstrate to Iran that if the Iranian state becomes more moderate and less contentious then the US and other interested parties will not only allow but encourage Iran to have more influence in the region and support Iranian efforts to secure its place in the region. 7) Make it very clear to the House of Saud that they must stop their extremism and abrogate their support for and tolerance of Wahabi extremism. Furthermore they must allow Shi'ite populations in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States which are willing to live peacefully with their Sunni neighbours to do so without oppression and suppression and with dignity and respect. Embargo Saudi Arabia and threaten to hold in escrow its loans without interest until it complies. Should Saudi Arabia attempt expulsion or genocide of Shi'ite populations then a crippling military response would result swiftly and with dreadful resolve. 8) Pressure Hamas, Fattah, and Israel to come to a agreement within a few years of sitting them down and if they fail then punish them all equally through crippling financial, commercial, and physical interdiction. Let them live in peace together or languish in misery together, their choices and their solutions will determine their futures. Should any group attempt expulsion or genocide then a crippling military response would result swiftly and with dreadful resolve. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 5:01 p.m. PST |
It would have to be something the US can do unilaterally, Mako, 'cuz I don't think we're going to get backing from the Russians, the Chinese or the EU on this one. I foresee a good chance that a unilateral US naval blockade could turn into a shooting war, where we might lose a lot of ships and sailors in a hurry, and be pushed to escalate beyond reason. Not a course to embark on lightly. Contrary to the proverb, sometimes endless horror is better than a horrible end, if you don't want to end, that is. Oh no! I agree with zippy again! Three times now! I have to reexamine my life. Sigh. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 29 Jun 2016 5:27 p.m. PST |
An unfounded but commonly recited statement from Fox News. We do not see Iran supporting ISIS but we have seen Turkey give cover to them. Iran didn't start Al-Qaeda or ISIS, both are Western creations. You may sincerely believe Iran is the center of it all but you're sincerely wrong. I've heard that elsewhere … Regardless, Iran supported the precursor to Hezbollah in Lebanon '83, and the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, '96. And they continue to support Hezbollah and some others. Like IIRC, Hamas … Iran supported Shia militias in GWII in Iraq, like the cleric Al Sadr'. And many Coalition lives were lost because of it. That is enough for me to know Iran supports islamic terrorism. And we all know AQ and Daesh are both Sunni … and again Iran is over 90% Shia. So those 3 won't be going out for drinks & dinner anytime soon … And again don't forget the Sunni Saudi Wahabi support of islamic terrorism. As Rod pointed out in his post … so it must be right/true ! Should any group attempt expulsion or genocide then a crippling military response would result swiftly and with dreadful resolve. Wait … Wait … Wait … isn't that what we are/should be doing to Daesh and AQ ? A crippling military response … how un-PC ? No kum-bia moments ? |
zippyfusenet | 29 Jun 2016 5:44 p.m. PST |
Rod I, I think we're trying to follow your program, and it's failing. We're still The Great Satan. The Iranians nor their proxies show any willingness to moderate their positions – they just crow over every concession we make, that they're winning and their final victory is inevitable. I think kicking off a war with Iran will have even a worse outcome than present policy. But we had better stop kidding ourselves that they're playing ball with us. They're setting us up. We had better go back on our guard. You may sincerely believe Iran is the center of it all but you're sincerely wrong. Of course Iran isn't the center of it *all*. The Saudis back Daesh, the Iranians fight Daesh. The Iranians' proxies are the world-wide Hezbollah movement, the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas (that I can think of just off-hand); they have spread carnage world-wide, and they will again the first chance they get. They are not our friends, and they don't seem to want to be. It take real talent to lose in this conflict to both the Salafi Mujahidin and the Iranians when they're at war with each other, but we are managing to do just that. In my opinion. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 6:00 p.m. PST |
Legion 4: Wait … Wait … isn't that what we are/should be doing to Daesh and AQ ? A crippling military response … how un-PC ? No kum-bia moments ? If you could confine the damage to ISIL or al Qaeda then you might have a point. But you can't, thus the killing of others and the destruction of their property and society only serves to strengthen the terrorists and promote their growth and cause. Also the desire for martyrdom by the terrorists makes a straightforward military response less effective. Better to use a combination of criminal-legal, intelligence, propaganda and social means and use military only as a last resort or when extraordinary opportunities present themselves and civilian casualties can be avoided. The Saudis, the politicians of Hamas/Fatah, the Israelis and others are not martyrs-in-waiting and are therefore much more likely to respond sensibly to the threat or first demonstration of overwhelming military force than those intent on shahid. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 6:03 p.m. PST |
Crap, I spelled Fatah wrong and missed it. Apologies. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 6:20 p.m. PST |
zippyfusenet: Rod I, I think we're trying to follow your program, and it's failing. We're still The Great Satan. The Iranians nor their proxies show any willingness to moderate their positions – they just crow over every concession we make, that they're winning and their final victory is inevitable. That's why steps one, two and three come first. Iran is not a monolith. More than half of the population is under 30 years of age and are becoming more and more fed up with the theocracy and the revolutionary vestiges which constrain their lives. Engagement both weakens the regime and gives the old-guard options to save face, retire and step aside while a new generation of hopefully less radicalized leaders steps forward. It is these "Young Turk"-Persians with whom a better future may be possible. Lay off the threats and bombs; talk and horse-trade with the old and new regimes even though you detest what they stand for, in hopes for a better future for Iranians and everyone else alike. If they call you the Great Satan, so what? Show them otherwise by being willing to work constructively and cooperatively in limited areas despite their hate and rhetoric. Then widen the scope of cooperation and as things improve as mutual respect and trust gradually increases. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
zippyfusenet | 29 Jun 2016 6:27 p.m. PST |
If they call you the Great Satan, so what? You probably wouldn't like it if I insulted and threatened you. Words reflect thoughts. Thoughts lead to actions. My name is Irving. Let's start there. If you can't even call me by my name, talking to you is a waste of my time. Thinking I can work with you is a delusion. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 6:42 p.m. PST |
Well, Irving let's talk and get Hassan and Reza into the mix. The crack'ill be grand tonight and the dawn could be more hopeful. Let's plant olive trees and resist planting thorny briars. Let's plant trees today which will provide sustenance, shade and comfort for future generations. As the Greeks said' "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Mako11 | 29 Jun 2016 6:49 p.m. PST |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm, it appears you are the one who is ill-informed, and/or misguided. Facts are difficult things for some to accept, sometimes, but they are still facts. A pity you aren't willing to accept the US State Department's 2016 report, and have to make such an attack on Fox News for reporting said facts (will you be trashing CNN for reporting the same thing?). They don't make this stuff up, they just report on it. link link "On Thursday, the State Department announced in its 2016 report on terrorist activity that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism. It also announced ISIS as "the greatest threat globally." The report said that Iran "remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world." |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Jun 2016 7:25 p.m. PST |
Mako 11: Read the second link more carefully and you will see that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism from a list of three countries defined as 'state sponsors of terrorism'. This does not include nations outside of this designation, such as Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. They're tricksy ones these PR/State Department types and you have to read carefully to avoid being hood-winked by their double-speak and half-truths. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Ucalegos | 29 Jun 2016 8:30 p.m. PST |
"they don't make this stuff up, they just report it" Ha Ha. That cheered me up. A genuine question. When was the last terrorist attack that can be clearly linked to Iran that directly impacted American or otherWestern interests? |
Mako11 | 29 Jun 2016 11:20 p.m. PST |
Not sure, but there was that little failed attempt by Iran to kill a Saudi on US soil that was foiled a few years back, and quickly swept under the rug. Hezbos vs. Israel is probably much more current, time wise. Also, all those directional IEDs Iran produced and gave to the Iraqi and Afghan guerrillas, not too long ago, which they used to kill American and coalition troops. Even had their serial numbers and other info on them, so they could be traced directly back to the Iranian manufacturing plants. A pity we didn't take those out, back in the day. |
Ucalegos | 29 Jun 2016 11:37 p.m. PST |
So IEDs of dubious provenance used by other actors against an occupying force in a different country 9 years ago. Clear evidence of Iran's status as the major supporter of terror in the world today. It'd be interesting to know how many Chinese serial numbers were in the electronics. |
zippyfusenet | 30 Jun 2016 3:54 a.m. PST |
A genuine question. When was the last terrorist attack that can be clearly linked to Iran that directly impacted American or otherWestern interests? So, you're not fussed about the Alberto Nisman assassination? I am. But that's me. Oh wait. "…clearly linked…" You must still buy the Iranians' plausible deniability on this murder. I don't. But that's me. |
Ucalegos | 30 Jun 2016 6:01 a.m. PST |
Tin foil hats at the ready. Even wikipedia doesn't try and pin that on the Iranians. You've got to dig pretty deep to find it on foxnews.com and even there it's oblique. But hey, it's not like Argentina's got it's own colourful history of political assassinations is it. Next. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 8:14 a.m. PST |
If you could confine the damage to ISIL or al Qaeda then you might have a point. But you can't, thus the killing of others and the destruction of their property and society only serves to strengthen the terrorists and promote their growth and cause. Ah yes … the CD conundrum. We've discussed this many, many, many, times before. May standard reply is the US/West goes out of it's way to avoid CD. Otherwise places like Raqqa would look like the dark side of the moon. But all that can be done is limit it to as close to 0 as possible. War has a tendency to be messy … yes ? Especially fighting terrorists/insurgents in urban terrain. Remember me saying this again, again and again ? Guess not … Also the desire for martyrdom by the terrorists makes a straightforward military response less effective. Better to use a combination of criminal-legal, intelligence, propaganda and social means and use military only as a last resort or when extraordinary opportunities present themselves and civilian casualties can be avoided. All this is being done … but … but … remember what just happened in Turkey 24 hours ago. And a few days/weeks back in Lebanon, Jordan, Orlando FL, etc., etc. Sorry Rod you are not going to get me to drink your internationalist/globalist/"we are the world"/PC … Not when it comes to Daesh, AQ, etc. … Thinking I can work with you is a delusion. So I'm not the only that thinks that !? |
zippyfusenet | 30 Jun 2016 8:25 a.m. PST |
So many people agree with me lately. I must be a very agreeable fellow. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 8:27 a.m. PST |
So IEDs of dubious provenance used by other actors against an occupying force in a different country 9 years ago.It'd be interesting to know how many Chinese serial numbers were in the electronics.
The end user may not be the manufacturer. I'm sure there are a lot of serial numbers from various countries' weapons producers as well as other signatures of who made them. A French made AT missile was found to be used on a US M1 MBT, during GWII. Even with an arms embargo, the end user may not get the weapons systems from the country of manufacture. But again, the signature of Iranian made weapons, IEDs, etc., were found to have killed Coalition troops. So very few have clean hands, but certainly in this case, Iran's are a dirty as anyone's. |
Ucalegos | 30 Jun 2016 8:27 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure which is a better analogy. Broken record, or stopped clock. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 8:43 a.m. PST |
On the lighter side, at least for me. The Pentagon reported a combined US/Iraqi strike package destroyed a Daesh convoy in vic. of Fallujah along a road leading out of the city. BDA : 40-55 Deash vehicles destroyed. [I saw the footage on CNN. They won't even make good parts ! ] Plus Over 250 Daesh murderers sent to the busses on the way to "Paradise". "Aloha Snackbar !" Looks like along with other ordinance used it appeared on the gun camera footage rockets were seen being fired on the convoy. Possibly from US Apache Gunships. Of course, any number of other airframes can carry such ordinance. But Rod told me the Iraqis hated and reviled the AH-64 as symbol of oppression and abuse. So yeah the US probably wouldn't use AH-64s so as not to upset the Iraqis' feelings. Even though the gun camera foot may show otherwise. I'm sure Deash hates and reviles the AH-64. And sees it as a symbol of oppression and abuse. Well maybe the Daesh in convoy that got toasted didn't have time to even wonder or worry about it. Burn Baby Burn … |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 8:49 a.m. PST |
Broken record, or stopped clock. Either way … many including myself have a long memory. And will never have anything but distain for islamic terrorists/jihadis and their supporters. Call me old fashioned … |
Ucalegos | 30 Jun 2016 8:58 a.m. PST |
Long memories are a big part of the problem. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 9:02 a.m. PST |
Yeah … that works both ways. The islamists still refer to the West as Crusaders at times … How many years ago were the Crusades ? 500, 600, years ago. They should have had time to get over it. Not to mention how long have the Sunni and Shia hated each other ? And how long have they hated people of the Jewish faith or the Infidel in general ? It goes back farther than the '48 Arab-Israeli War. |
Ucalegos | 30 Jun 2016 9:13 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 9:15 a.m. PST |
Indeed … at least we can agree on that … But you know … even a stopped clock can be right twice a day … Also note … the USA was not involved in the Crusades ! |
Ucalegos | 30 Jun 2016 9:34 a.m. PST |
Good thing it's not done anything to stir things up more recently then isn't it. |
Mako11 | 30 Jun 2016 11:39 a.m. PST |
Ucalegos, you can bury your head in the sand all you want, but Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism, and has been for some time. Iranians were making and providing those IEDs to people in the region a lot more recently than 9 years ago. They're doing the same vs. the Israelis, Yemeni's, etc., with their rockets, mortars, RPGs, and other small arms and ammunition, even today. Cargo ship loads of their weapons have been seized on numerous vessels, as the Iranians attempted to smuggle them to their proxy fighters. Their proxies are also launching ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia. I'm no fan of the Saudis, but that is a pretty provocative move. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2016 1:29 p.m. PST |
Good thing it's not done anything to stir things up more recently then isn't it. Good thing ![ Sarcasm Alert !!!! ] I'll say as I had said before. In retrospect the US made some enormous errors. 1) Supporting the Muj vs. Russia. They should have been left to bleed each other out. Like the CIA first believed to be the best course of action. Maybe UBL, AZH, and their other cronies, etc., may have been sent to "Paradise" by USSR ordinance. 2) GWII … there is enough mistakes made here to see why things are as we see today. But the US is not to completely blame. The weak corrupt factionalized Iraqi government with support from Iran proved to the world was Iraq better off with Saddam in charge. As horrible as that was. 2a) The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq too soon only compounded all the first mistakes of GWII. And that has been compounded by lack of US leadership to the West, etc., … And we have to realize that Iran is no friend to the US or much of the West. Nor is Saudi Arabia … |
Ucalegos | 30 Jun 2016 8:52 p.m. PST |
The conflict is Yemen is very much a Saudi Iranian proxy war. But there's a clue in that. Unfortunately for everyone in Yemen it is a civil war. I suppose the other side in any war of this sort are terrorists. All the war in Yemen demonstrates is that the Gulf States can't sort anything out in their own back yard, regardless of how much shiny kit they buy from the US and Europe. If the Houthis actually had Scuds at all they came from North Korea. I bet those Kalashnikovs found in April all had Russian serial numbers on them. I asked what the most recent example of Iranian supported terrorist attack on Western or American interests are.
|
zippyfusenet | 01 Jul 2016 4:41 a.m. PST |
I asked what the most recent example of Iranian supported terrorist attack on Western or American interests are. I answered you, and you laughed it off with some weak crap about tinfoil hats. You sound a lot like my old pal Chortle. |
Ucalegos | 01 Jul 2016 7:28 a.m. PST |
No you didn't. You came up with some half baked story about an unsolved suicide/murder in Buenos Aires. |
Legion 4 | 01 Jul 2016 7:53 a.m. PST |
The conflict is Yemen is very much a Saudi Iranian proxy war. But there's a clue in that. Unfortunately for everyone in Yemen it is a civil war. I suppose the other side in any war of this sort are terrorists. All the war in Yemen demonstrates is that the Gulf States can't sort anything out in their own back yard, regardless of how much shiny kit they buy from the US and Europe. If the Houthis actually had Scuds at all they came from North Korea. I bet those Kalashnikovs found in April all had Russian serial numbers on them.
Yes … no disagreement here … However, I have heard the same reports in the media about Iranian support of the Houthis. As well as Iranian and North Korean interactions. Especially about nuc development and deployable systems. Now since none of us were involved in any of these situations. Or … Were there[they never invited me !]. Or have a high enough clearance to know for sure [Only an expired TS for me !]. I'm confident those who need to know … do … Like the CIA, DIA, etc., … Again I don't trust the North Koreans anymore than I trust the Iranians or Saudis. Call me "cautious" … You give peace a chance … but we'll cover you anyway … Ucalegos, I take it you are not from the US. You have posted neither you location or even your real name(?) in your profile. That always makes me a bit suspect. I find that is standard MO/tactic. I'm not saying you are … only that is just an observation. However, based on your comments I don't think you are an American or a fan of the USA. Which is fine everybody is entitled to one's opinions. But as we know Sun Tzu stated, "Know Your Enemy … " … So I like to know who I'm playing verbal volley ball with … Maybe that is just me … |
Rod I Robertson | 01 Jul 2016 9:13 a.m. PST |
Legion 4: But as we know Sun Tzu stated, "Know Your Enemy … " … So I like to know who I'm playing verbal volley ball with … Maybe that is just me … The implication of this statement, despite political equivocation and emojis, is that you view those who disagree with you as your enemies. That is a rather extreme duality to live in, no? Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 01 Jul 2016 9:21 a.m. PST |
No Rod … Lighten up for Heaven's sake ! But in a debate, which many of these threads become, it is one side disagrees with the other. And calling them the "enemy" is just a colorful use of the vernacular. Try Decaf huh !? That is a rather extreme duality to live in, no? Please no amateur psychoanalysis … I see the VA shrink in about two weeks, I'll submit your "theory" to them then. IIRC, I've heard the term, "High Functioning Psychopath" … mentioned … Definition : psy·cho·path. NOUN
1.a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior. synonyms: madman · madwoman · maniac · lunatic · psychotic ·
• informal an unstable and aggressive person: "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around a fight to encourage the combatants" |
Ucalegos | 01 Jul 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
Yeah Rod. Some of these Ralph disagrees with are classed as just trolls, not full enemies. Lighten up. Not all if us live in parts of the world where you put your real name to this sort of discussion. |