This is so big... I just cannot see this "coincidence" staying under the radar.

I ain't mourning over the dude, just hope this isn't going to escalate further than it already has.

It's also very odd how many people here suddenly approve of hawkish behaviour when Trump does it.

Iran has vowed revenge. I feel like it's not a matter of whether this will or won't escalate, but instead a matter of to what degree.

I think they approve of this behavior because Iran was begging for it and had to be put in its place. The quasi-siege for the US embassy on new years day, clearly arranged and steered by Iranian proxy forces, was one provocation too much.

Like I said earlier in this thread, Iran will have to provide some reaction to save face. The big question is if they let things escalate on a large scale, or if they let things settle down after some smaller actions which mostly serve for PR.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 3 2020 02:07am

I’m glad Hillary didn’t get elected she would have got us into a war with Iran.

funny how this story begins with "kata'ib hezbollah attacks our airbase", and not with "administration fabricates evidence, lies to its people and the world, to start another multi trillion dollar war, further destablising a whole region"...
just to be clear, fuck that guy with a cactus, the world's a better place without him - it's just interesting how the mindblowing injustices that got us where we are today, and significantly contributed to the rise of terrorist scum like that, are just ignored to create a simplistic good / bad dichotomy...



well, he didn't claim that 'hacks won't be able to twist reality and facts, trying to make their uncritical support for whatever trump does look ever so slightly more reasonable', he suggested that at the end of the day, cultists approve of whatever he does - which you have illustrated to perfection.

Let's wait and see if this really pulls the U.S. into a war with Iran. I doubt it tbh. As Goom said, Iran is very weak right now in a lot of different ways.




What are you suggesting here? That attacks on U.S. airbases should be tolerated so that the U.S. can atone for its sins from 2 decades ago?

This whole situation is not about a simplistic good/bad dichotomy, it is about state-sponsored attacks on U.S. personnel and infrastructure (embassy, airfields) having, and needing to have, consequences.

what i'm saying is that this whole thing didn't START with attacks on US airbases - that's just a narrative chosen to make it look like americans are merely 'defending themselves' while indiscriminately bombing the shit out of people in a region they have no business being in to start with.

this whole framing of the issue very much suggests a very simplistic and shortsighted take of who the bad guys are, when in fact there are almost no good actors in this.

without that choice, one could just as well describe the attacks on US airbases as "consequence" of american terrorism on foreign soil - and with that i don't mean their killing of the terrorists they helped create in the first place, those are still bad guys of course, but the mindblowing body count amongst middle eastern civilians, directly and indirectly affected by america's warmongering.

so when you talk about "state-sponsored attacks", that is pretty ironic, even though i'm sure that's lost on you, as usual. but again, you're just a hack trying to defend whatever trump's latest take on the whole 'interventionist' issue is, so it's hardly surprising to see you bend over backwards to justify warmongering, after you defended abandoning one of the very rare good causes, under the guise of 'NON-interventionism'...