Yeh, you have to investigate before you get proof. Biden’s DOJ had no interest in getting to the bottom of it. The Floyd riots were already politically damaging enough, so the last thing they wanted was for the American people to find out they had been lied to for a year about these protests. That they weren’t “ justified anger” but orchestrated by foreign influencers. There may turn out to be scant evidence of that, we’ll see, but there’s plenty of smoke to suggest that the FBI will find the fire sooner rather than later.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
It’s funny how y’all dismiss everything Trump says. Granted, he says some crazy sh at times, but don’t you concede the possibility that POTUS may have access to information we don’t and that they are going through the proper protocols ( like opening an FBI investigation) before additional info is disclosed?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. The issue at hand has been the chaos in LA, and hood rats being mixed in with folks protesting. Instead of focusing on this, you now see an opportunity to spin the conversation over to Patel and his loyalty to Trump.
Director Patel is quoted in the article he linked. I responded to content within the article.
The issue @KDSTONE and I were discussing, with no confusion between us, was about the myth of paid protesters.
Unless you're going to start taking @GhostOf301 to task for bringing it up and KD for participating, you have no reason to single me out.
I don't agree with everything they post, but for the most part, we are on the same page. You on the other hand? Come on Datt. Other than being Duke fans, you and I share little in common on here. That's not a slap, just a fact.
No end in sight for the Ukraine war. No end in sight for the Gaza war. And now it looks as if we are at the very least playing cover for an all out Israeli strike on Iran. Israel has declared a state of emergency, which is basically saying, hey we're at war.
So much for ending wars.
So much for ending wars.
Israel should have done this months ago. Iran may have enough ballistic missiles now to overwhelm Israeli defense system receptors they’re saying. Iran has been popping out about fifty ballistic missiles month allegedly.
Other nations in the Middle East will be grateful Iran’s nukes are destroyed although they can’t say so publicly.
No one in their right mind thought that dealing with Russia and Iran would be anything close to ideal, but this is an example of Trump’s “ The war will be over in 24 hours” bluster coming back to bite him in the ass. These Israeli attacks were inevitable after the failed diplomacy of first the Obama regime for 12 years, and now Trump for going on 5 years.
After Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the Houtis’ daily rocket attacks, and the ballistic attacks in April and Oct of 2024, it leaves little doubt that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat for Israel.
They have enrichment capabilities now of a reported 60%, when only 3-5% is needed for civilian use. In addition, the IAEA cited them once again for noncompliance so the clock was ticking
Last edited:
Intelligence is saying Iran was within 4 weeks of having nuclear weapons grade materials.
I agree that this was inevitable. I would just prefer we don't commit to using ground forces under any circumstances. The attacks today seem to be personnel targets. Seeing where tomorrow is supposed to be a massive strike. Haven't seen whether our air force will be involved or not. We also have massive military build up in the SE Pacific. That has me anxious too.
Unless Iran attacks our troops in the Middle East or commits a terrorist attack on US soil, I think Trump will do the best he can to stay out of it. I’d be shocked if ground troops are ever on the table.
Heard a great point being made. If there was a country in Central America that said it's purpose was to wipe the USA off the map, had already willing lobbed missles into the US and were actively attempting to build a nuke, what should our response be? This is the exact situation Israel finds it self in.
I'm quite aware. You are allowing it to cloud your judgment by coming at me when the current discussion doesn't warrant it.
My biggest question right now would be Fordow, the nuclear site that’s about a half mile under ground. Conv. wisdom has always said that only the US has the bunker busters necessary to destroy it, so if Israel is unable to completely finish the job, then this particular site would be my lingering concern going forward. They should be able to take the others out if they haven’t already.
So when is it okay to use CNN as a source and when isn't it? If the attack had not gone well and they reported that accurately, would they be dismissed as msm?
A strategic mistake we made in 1991 was leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Should Israel go after Iran's Ayatollah, as well?
As long as the source is reporting the news accurately, it doesn't matter if it's CNN, MSNBC, FOX...
He's the leader but not the expert. Strategically speaking, it was better for Israel to take out the military leaders. Going after the Ayatollah could make it feel more like a religious war, which seems very unappealing to me. Plus, they surely have someone in waiting to take his place.
If the removal of the ayatollah is the goal, then Mossad would likely make it look like an inside job, to catalyze a popular revolt. This may sound a little tinfoil, but the CIA did this kind of sh for years. Mossad clearly already has significant help inside Iran to pull off an operation of this magnitude.
Technically Khomeini is easy to replace, but he was President for about a decade prior to his current gig in 89; he’s the face of this regime so his death or removal could have a devastating effect. Khimeini made religion a key point of this conflict by using passages in the Koran to implore followers to “kill unbelievers” and “infidels” so I’m not sure his murder would alter the dynamics already present.
To your point about Hussein, it’s baffling that he wasn’t ousted. Bush 41 had a level of international support for that war that future Pres could only dream about. Hell, even France was on board iirc
It has been a long time since I have tuned in. But CNN has always had exceptional coverage of wars, natural disasters and other tragic events. Not to mention, it was only my intention to share the content.
That could be argued. It could also be argued that removing him from power was a strategic mistake by W. I don't know what Israel should do outside of destroying nuclear capabilities.
I'll wear the same tinfoil hat with you in this case.
Sounds like Khamenei has already made it feel like a religious war, so taking him out won't make any difference on that front?
Huh. I guess I remember their coverage most of all from '91, but they were practically the only game in town then.
The whole rationale for taking Hussein out was fake, but I'd say the world is better off without him in it. Why do you think it may have been a strategic mistake?
The world is better off without him in it.
I agree, but should you ever face war crimes in an international court, I’d come up with a better legal defense. Ha ha
Oh geez. I take a week off from this board and come back to find @Dattier saying I attacked him. Please explain how I ever did so. And please refrain from your normal dramatics.
Fair enough. Just surprised me a little to see the feminine bitching and complaining. Carry on.
6 pages and 4 days ago? Lol
I’ve moved on.
Where in 91' we weren't that far removed from using Hussein to fight a proxy war against Iran. And it would have been good timing to get rid of him then while the region was in support of it. In 2006/05, the region was especially anti-America/west, and Iraq was in turmoil. As evil as he was, he did keep radical factions at bay. He had limited foreign influence while still having an element of unpredictability that kept the peace to an extent. After his removal, Iraq became a breeding ground for terrorists and emboldened the Sunni radicals who were kept in check by Suddam. A Sunni himself. As well as the Shia radicals who now felt free in Iraq. That is on top of the obvious occupation of the U.S. military in the region became a motive for more attacks. It also destroyed Iraq's working population and created a new generation of poor and desperate people who naturally would blame the invading forces, us. Though Suddam was an evil dictator and had a lot of blood on his hands, we would never really know if the pros of removing him truly outweighed the cons of the status quo. We have a lot of blood on our hands as well.
In the end, I can't confidently say whether removing Suddam was a good strategy or not. I am just giving an argument for it being a poor strategic decision. It is also likely that it was more of a mistake in how we executed the regime change than actually removing Suddam from power.
Outstanding post. Thanks, @GhostOf301
Poopiest post that ever pooped a poop.
"Dozens of Minnesota Democrats were on a target list written by the gunman, according to law enforcement sources.
Those on the list included Gov. Tim Walz, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, according to law enforcement sources familiar with the matter.
Police said the list -- which was retrieved from the suspect’s vehicle -- also named Hortman and Hoffman. Both victims are Democrats and Hortman was formerly the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives.
The shooter’s list of potential targets also included the names of abortion providers and pro-choice activists, several sources told ABC News. Many of the Democratic lawmakers on the list have been outspoken about pro-choice policy positions, two sources said."
I was actually coming here to share this AND state that I, for one, will not leverage it into a broader statement about the Right.
A Democratic pol and her spouse are murdered, another assaulted, and dozens more targeted... but you're posting stories about how the Left is violent.
The left is violent and they continue to prove it. The continued use of Hitler comparissions, the calls of threats to democracy, the claiming of we will no longer have a country is the type of rhetoric that has made it ok for people to think they are doing a service by doing these things.
Last edited:
You're using the occasion of the assassination of a Democratic politician and her husband, the assault of another Democratic politician and his wife, and the targeting of numerous other Democratic politicians and pro-choice activists to promote how the Left is violent.
