Quote (fender @ Jan 2 2020 01:28am)

pretty rich to uncritically regirgitate omri ceren on this, in order to discredit the NYT as 'propaganda'. apparently the irony of that is lost on you, but i find it pretty funny.

some of those statements are outright ridiculous, like claiming all those protesters were 'iranian militia' - where's the proof for that? oh right, there is none because it's complete bs. also, this being a response to US bombings is not mutually exclusive to it being the culmination of a longer escalation -"the straw that broke the camel's back" - unsurprisingly the dec 29 airstrikes were not the only ones, trump's 'foreign policy' is firmly embracing the escalation with iran angle...

the pearl clutching over the US being "attacked" is particularly egregious. don't get me wrong, those hezbollah militias are certainly not good guys, but the whole framing of this, conveniently ignoring that the US attacked and invaded the country under false pretenses in the first place, and that it's them who are occupying and disproportionally murdering iraqi citizens, is just mindblowing.

imagine china invading the US to "defend" themselves against unjust wars by bombing evangelical christian and military industrial complex strongholds in america - objectively much more dangerous and and deadly groups.

so much for your anti interventionist narrative, pro war propagandist...

Quote (fender @ Jan 1 2020 08:39am)

could you explain to me how kata'ib hezbollah (an iraqi group) flags being waved, makes the president's unhinged war threats against iran any more reasonable? this was not a random provocation by iran, those ppl were protesting US bombings in iraq and syria on 29 dec, killing at least 25.

it's funny how you ppl pretend to support the bs 'anti-interventionist' angle when trump moves troops from protecting the kurds to protect oil fields and his fellow war criminals in saudi-arabia, but when he's threatening to start a whole new, and significantly larger military conflict with iran, you'll happily defend his warmongering.

it's almost like you don't have any principles, and just uncritically defend whatever that moron tweets during one of his episodes - and some still wonder why it's called a 'cult'...

Quote (Saucisson6000 @ Jan 2 2020 01:52am)

Quote (CarsV @ 3 Jan 2020 08:41)

Here, you need a new one of these. I bet you're hoping this incident is America's next Benghazi. Yeah, you kids are a special kind of fucked up. But, you never fail to illustrate your true colors to the rest of the world. ;)

https://i.postimg.cc/JzxTDV2Z/blue-single-curved-long-1024x1024.png

Quote (fender @ 3 Jan 2020 09:30)

why am i not surprised that a weak ass ad hominem was the best reply you could muster, after your uncritical support for everything your cult leader does was exposed yet again? it's time to stop the endless wars, not start a new one. time for americans to leave the middle east, not to send more troops.
i thought you people were in favour of that - at least you pretended to be, when trump betrayed and abandoned the only reasonable faction in the region - not to "bring those soldiers home" btw, but in order to protect some syrian oil fields...

Quote (CarsV @ 3 Jan 2020 08:54)

You know what is so brilliant about this? The idea of an extended military branch that deals with space has been floating around for decades. But, none of you low-information, CNN and sub/reddit diet fuckers would've taken it seriously until Trump proposed it. Only then it's ridiculous lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhuIz94W9_4


My only question is, will the US government cooperate with companies like SpaceX?

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 3 Jan 2020 05:16)

you're getting far too far ahead of things. it is far from a certainty that this airstrike on Soleimani will really trigger a new war.

and just for the record: most Trump supporters, just like the overwhelming majority of the american public at-large, are against a new iraq-style war with boots on the ground; and I suspect that Trump's approval ratings would plummet if he truly started such a war.
also note how the reactions from Democrats have been very cautious and wary, they all stress that the conflict with Iran should better not escalate much further. unlike in 2001/2003, this time around, there is clearly NO bipartisan support for going to war.