Iran attacks US bases in Iraq

Written By: - Date published: 2:11 pm, January 8th, 2020 - 174 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, International, Iran, war - Tags:

So the orange one’s temper tantrum has goaded Iran into replying in kind.

There are reports of two US bases being hit by missiles launched from within Iran and as I type this it is being reported that Iran’s air force is in the air.

Trump is apparently going to make a statement.

This is going to get ugly …

News will be added to this post as things develop.

Edit:  As Robert De Niro (edit:oops a parody account and I was sure this was something he would say!) says this would be a great time to suspend his twitter account.

https://twitter.com/RobertDeNiroUS/status/1214714191724077062

174 comments on “Iran attacks US bases in Iraq ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Wensleydale 1
    8 January 2020 at 2:39 pm

    News At 10: World War 3 started by petulant man-child in an effort to distract from his ongoing trial for corruption and abuse of power.

    Seriously, I sometimes think Trump would actually set fire to the planet rather than admit he wasn't tremendous at something. You know, like being POTUS.

    • soddenleaf 1.1
      10 January 2020 at 10:24 am

      Geez. Trump is irrelevant incoherent and as always a distraction.

      Iran just shot down a passenger airline. That's how the cover up looks.

      That's how it serves Iran to move on from the Generals death, back to the highly successful state sponsorship of terrorism.

      Imagine for a moment that having missed killing one US soldier in those Iraqi US bases, having lost 60 mourners, that the blood was all one-sided. What was the chance a US spy carting a Canada in passport…. …now western infidels are dead.

      Iran is sated, it's revenge placated, it can go back to harshing the region as a messenger of peace, ha.

      Trump is a useless pawn, lashing out and used as a result, no rhyme no reason to Trump stances, nothing to read between the lines.

      The world should stop any non Iranian from taking off and subsequently landing in Iran until it full cooperates with the international air investigation. If we must allow them transport, then only to say Doha, so that the full mid of national exists on each flight… ..anyone keenly into conspricies would think a third nation hack the missile system. Who built them?

  2. Sabine 2
    8 January 2020 at 2:39 pm

    Someone please tell the Prime Minister to pull all NZ troops and bring them home.

    They are not needed for the upcoming shit show.

  3. Gareth 3
    8 January 2020 at 2:41 pm

    That's not Robert De Niro. He's right though.

  4. infused 4
    8 January 2020 at 3:47 pm

    their planes are junk

    no ww3 here

    iran is being pretty stupid

    • Incognito 4.1
      8 January 2020 at 3:58 pm

      I think starting a war is pretty stupid.

      The world knows that Iran is a sitting and flying lame duck, in military terms, relative to the superiority of the US (and its allies). The world is watching nervously.

      • aom 4.1.1
        8 January 2020 at 6:32 pm

        Except Incognito, when did the US last win a war other than the brief skirmish against the fearsome military forces of Grenada. That time they had the help of a coalition of six Caribbean nations. This time even Israel seems to joining the former poodles in backing away from endorsing the rash stupidity of the madman of the US.

      • infused 4.1.2
        8 January 2020 at 6:39 pm

        iran is just putting on a show for its people. it's plain as day watching twitter. their properganda vs the us.

      • the other pat 4.1.3
        9 January 2020 at 4:50 pm

        they have nukes and can use them….lets at least be a tad nervous.

    • joe90 4.2
      8 January 2020 at 5:09 pm

      Nearly twenty years up against Pathan goatherds and they're bogged down in Afghanistan. Iraqi militia have sent 5k young Americans home in boxes and tens of thousands more home sans their balls and numerous limbs.

      And the US is going to do what, invade a country half a world away with mountains on three sides, an ocean on the other, a population of 80 million and a large, sophisticated military?

      They've not got the stomach for more bodies in boxes and young men missing bits, and they can't drone their way out of this fight.

      So, other than strangling Iran economically…shit, tried that… nuke 'em,.. yeah, their strategic besties Poots and Xi are going to be fine with that…, WTF are they going to?

      • RedLogix 4.2.1
        8 January 2020 at 5:23 pm

        What's left of Iran's economy is highly dependent on oil exports … all nice fat targets. Keep in mind the Saudi's will be happy to see retaliation for the Iranian-backed drone attacks on their oil installations just a few months back.

        Most sane people are going to wish that both sides stop the escalation here, certainly Iran seems to be signalling just that. But if you want to know what the US options are … oil facilities are the obvious ones. Nuclear processing sites would also have to be somewhere on the list.

        For sure if I had to turn up to work at one tomorrow I'd be a tad more than apprehensive.

    • Sanctuary 4.3
      8 January 2020 at 5:39 pm

      The North Vietnamese had a pretty shit airforce as well.

      Just saying.

      • RedLogix 4.3.1
        8 January 2020 at 5:56 pm

        The US has zero intent to put troops into Iran so the Vietnam comparison is not only dated, but not applicable. No-one is worried too much by Iran's Air Force … it's their reasonably effective missile capability that has everyone in the region worried.

        Especially if you're floating on a big fat Nimitz class carrier in the Gulf of Hormuz.

  5. Ad 5
    8 January 2020 at 3:58 pm

    OMG that's depressing.

  6. Siobhan 6
    8 January 2020 at 4:07 pm

    Yeah, stupid as, …the perils of the most stupid man in the world Presiding over a stumbling Empire. Though I hate to think how many Wars Hilary would have ramped up…but then given that President Obama managed to be the first president to serve up eight years of non-stop war I guess its all pretty stupid. I do wonder though, do the people who died under Obamas watch have the comfort of knowing they died in a 'smart' war?.

    • Pingao 6.1
      8 January 2020 at 4:15 pm

      Has USA ever NOT been at war (or war by proxy) since the 30s?

    • Phil 6.2
      8 January 2020 at 5:31 pm

      Though I hate to think how many Wars Hilary would have ramped up…

      There's no getting around the fact that Hillary wouldn't have scrapped the successfully working nuclear deal with Iran. That's what started the latest round of this whole fucking mess and the blame for it must be laid solely and squarely with Trump's childish petulance.

  7. ianmac 7
    8 January 2020 at 4:27 pm

    I read that Iran gave a 15minute warning before the strikes. Would explain the lack of casualties.

    Pity the USA didn't give such a warning to the commercial airliner that it shot down in the early 90s killing over a hundred civilians.

    • McFlock 7.1
      8 January 2020 at 4:37 pm

      They didn't even warn the neighbouring US ships.

      ISTR the two or three other US vessels in the area were trying to figure out wtf the Vincennes was on about, and they could hear all the radio messages (the airliner only heard one, and that message had incorrect identifying information in it. The other messages were on military channels).

      But the orange one did warn his russian overlords before bombing the Syrian bases, ISTR.

    • aom 7.2
      8 January 2020 at 6:37 pm

      290 killed ianmac.

      [lprent: At a guess I suspect that you’re just spreading fake news. It annoys me when I see credulous fools who assert fact when they are too lazy to check. Please show some common sense and not act like a dumb chook crying that the sky is falling. ]

      • Barfly 7.2.1
        9 January 2020 at 10:06 am

        Lprent

        aom was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

        "Pity the USA didn't give such a warning to the commercial airliner that it shot down in the early 90s killing over a hundred civilians."

        • Incognito 7.2.1.1
          9 January 2020 at 10:23 am

          It seems this is an unfortunate misunderstanding. However, one way to minimise the risk of it happening (again) is for commenters to make it as clear as possible what they are talking about and provide supporting info such as a link. Don’t assume we all know what you know and that we are members of some kind of in-group of knowers; we cannot reading each other’s mind and you cannot automatically assume we are on the same page.

  8. RedLogix 8
    8 January 2020 at 5:06 pm

    This pretty much sums up how I feel about it:

    Immediately after news broke of the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, some left-wing circles in the West proclaimed with great confidence – yet again – that World War III was around the corner. Previously, these same warnings of global doom were evoked when US President Donald Trump ordered rather toothless strikes on empty military targets in Syria and escalated his rhetoric against North Korea's Kim Jong Un.

    And just as a world war did not break out on these previous occasions, it will not break out now either.

    …

    The debate around Soleimani and al-Muhandis' assassinations has served to illustrate, once again, the inconsistent perception by a segment of the "progressive" left of what constitutes "imperialism". They readily brand US and Israeli actions as imperialist; yet aggression by others – whether Russia, China, Iran or their allies – which causes equal damage and civilian deaths, is ignored, downplayed, or wrapped in "anti-terror" narratives (rather similar to the ones the US and Israel use).

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/soleimani-anti-imperialist-hero-200105211451136.html

    The whole article definitely worth a read. Overall I sense she underestimates the risk of an unintended escalation … but I found her argument persuasive.

    • McFlock 8.1
      8 January 2020 at 5:31 pm

      It sort of demonstrates how this level of "not normal" has made us insensitive to risk.

      All that "he's not a good guy" stuff is a distraction, IMO. I'm not sure I've seen anyone other than the Iranians calling him a great guy, but the internet being what it is, yeah some lefties have probably said it.

      But the real problem is that each escalation in rhetoric and now action is fine, until it's not. Nothing happened this time – were we lucky, or are we just unnecessarily risk-averse? The escalations keep happening, and each time they fizzle or even have a positive outcome. But the penalty for failure is extreme, and each time is a gamble.

      Now he's gone from name-calling to killing generals and refusing diplomats access to the UN. The Iranian response so far has been measured. But sooner or later someone (as exkiwiforces puts it) is going to open up a can of instant sunshine.

  9. Graeme 9
    8 January 2020 at 5:25 pm

    Getting interesting. A Ukrainian airliner has just gone down in flames shortly after taking off from Tehran airport

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/ukrainian-airliner-crashes-tehran-iranian-media-200108032720868.html

  10. Adrian 10
    8 January 2020 at 6:00 pm

    I think Trump should start the Draft in the USA. I would love to see how that turns out. Civil War anyone?

  11. esoteric pineapples 11
    8 January 2020 at 6:21 pm

    I wouldn't be travelling through Dubai to other places right now. I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade should put out an official warning for people to avoid travelling through Dubai, rather than just people visiting the United Arab Emirates itself

  12. mosa 12
    8 January 2020 at 6:38 pm

    This coming conflict will not be an Iraqi repeat of 2003.

    It will be a massive regional war with serious consequences including the price of oil which has already spiked and once attacks begin in the gulf it is all on.

    Israel will be a pivotal player in any push against Iran and a war on multiple fronts is a serious possibility.

    https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13981017000583

    https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/443919/Today-missile-attacks-just-preliminary-measures-Kosari

    https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/443921/IRGC-warns-US-regional-allies-of-becoming-source-of-anti-Iran

  13. joe90 13
    8 January 2020 at 6:53 pm

    So good that his old man bought a quack to help him dodge a war.

    https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1214358741165830144

  14. joe90 14
    8 January 2020 at 7:06 pm

    Targeting Iraqis because they knew the US doesn't give a rats about dead Iraqis.

    Great look, Iran.

    /

    https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1214744407041363969

    • the other pat 14.1
      9 January 2020 at 5:03 pm

      " Targeting Iraqis because they knew the US doesn't give a rats about dead Iraqis."…i think that remark is telling ….not just US but us……most dont give a rats

  15. mickysavage 15
    8 January 2020 at 7:30 pm

    The Guardian thinks that the response is carefully balanced so that the US does not have to retaliate. Time will tell …

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/jan/07/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-articles-iran-latest-updates-democrats

    • Dennis Frank 15.1
      8 January 2020 at 8:04 pm

      Seems so, eh? The 15 minute warning. So where did the troops relocate to – bunkers, I guess? If Iran lacks precision-guidance & bunker penetration rockets, were they just performing a ritual? As in "Okay, you killed our best general so we're going to whack the concrete near you real hard multiple times, which will be suitable punishment".

      So Trump thinks "Holy shit, I felt that through the concrete on the other side of the world. It really hurt! Better not do that again!"

    • lprent 15.2
      9 January 2020 at 8:36 am

      ..the response is carefully balanced..

      That was my impression as well. In effect they have provided an option for Trump to stop

      However the US use of a drone strike for what was clearly a purely political assassination opens a whole new can of worms. As far as I am aware there is no evidence of the Qum being directly involved in planning or implementing any kind of terrorist or protest actions – they seem to just be involved in providing resources directly or indirectly to local political groups who then do those actions. Much the same as the US, Russia, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and various other nations do.

      How long before the same tactic is used by all of the nations that have armed drones to attack anyone associated with other types of political actions?

      For instance with the people involved with advocating, imposing advocating economic and diplomatic sanctions – those directly and intentionally cause death and poverty, usually on innocent victims like children denied medications.

      Basically this assassination opens a whole new can of worms for international law and politics.

      Update: I see that the usual sensationist fake news got created and spread yesterday. I like that the Guardian has been reporting on the fakes.

      • Macro 15.2.1
        9 January 2020 at 11:20 am

        Basically this assassination opens a whole new can of worms for international law and politics.

        Totally agree. But not only International Law and Politics. It opens up the need for a complete reassessment of the US Constitution as well, as this Opinion piece, recently published on Vox, outlines:

        The only remaining check on Trump is the 2020 election

        Our legal system was not built for a president like Donald Trump.

        Let’s start this piece with two provocative claims. The first, which is hotly contested by legal experts, is that President Donald Trump broke the law when he ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a powerful Iranian paramilitary leader.

        The second claim is that it doesn’t matter.

        Part of the reason why the legal question is academic is that, even if we assume the strike on Soleimani was illegal, it’s hardly clear whether the courts can do anything to remedy an illegal assassination. It’s not like a judge could issue a writ of resurrection that restores life to the people killed in this American airstrike. And federal courts can’t hold a criminal trial of anyone involved in the Soleimani attack unless an increasingly partisan Justice Department agrees to prosecute. Nor is a judicial order likely to calm tensions between the United States and Iran.

        The killing of Soleimani is the latest in a series of escalations and retaliations that began with Trump’s decision to pull out of the nuclear deal former President Barack Obama struck with Iran and includes Iranian attacks on American assets within the Middle East.

        Trump, meanwhile, threatened massive retaliation “if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets.” He claimed the US would target “52 Iranian sites … some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture” (intentionally targeting “historic monuments, works of art, or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” is a war crime).

        Although there are some theoretical actions the courts could take to deescalate this conflict — it’s at least possible, for example, for the courts to order the military not to conduct future attacks on Iranian leaders without seeking congressional authorization — such judicial intervention is unlikely.

        https://www.vox.com/2020/1/7/21048243/trump-2020-election-iran-soleimani-no-law

  16. Anne 16
    8 January 2020 at 7:34 pm

    Two interesting assessments:

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12298932

    They both make excellent points, but I’m inclined to go more with Paul Buchanan.

    • Dennis Frank 16.1
      8 January 2020 at 7:49 pm

      "Gillespie said: "Trump has obviously misread the situation. He assumes that he could do an outrageous provocation on Iran and they would not strike back … He's obviously wrong about that." So this professor of international law believes he can read Trump's mind.

      Delusional, I reckon. Hasn't got a clue. Hasn't got the guts to opine that Trump gave the order without taking advice from the relevant US military commanders. I bet they fully informed him re the likely Iranian responses & likely damage resulting. Just because Trump does his cowboy act regularly doesn't mean he misreads situations.

      • Anne 16.1.1
        8 January 2020 at 8:36 pm

        Just because Trump does his cowboy act regularly doesn't mean he misreads situations.

        Well, he does to the extent he ignores expert advice. A common fault with all narcissists. They think they are always right when more often than not they are wrong.

        I'm not referring to his political nous. He knows how to fool some people all of the time and how to fool others part of the time. That does not constitute being right. It's just animal cunning.

  17. joe90 17
    8 January 2020 at 8:01 pm

    Ballistic missile launches, a plane crash, and of course, an earthquake in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant.

    M 4.9 – 10km SE of Borazjan, Iran

    • 2020-01-08 02:20:02 (UTC)
    • 29.195°N 51.287°E
    • 10.0 km depth

    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us70006w5q/executive

  19. Macro 19
    9 January 2020 at 7:58 am

    There really is a Trump tweet for everything:

    image

    • Puckish Rogue 20.1
      9 January 2020 at 1:24 pm

      How many casulties after the Iran response?

      • joe90 20.1.1
        9 January 2020 at 1:33 pm

        It was Kayfabe. None.

        • Puckish Rogue 20.1.1.1
          9 January 2020 at 1:39 pm

          Worked out pretty well then didn't it

          • McFlock 20.1.1.1.1
            9 January 2020 at 3:03 pm

            We'll see.

            • Puckish Rogue 20.1.1.1.1.1
              9 January 2020 at 3:07 pm

              Shame that the left almost seem to want a war to happen just so they can say they were right

              • Incognito …
                9 January 2020 at 3:24 pm

                Shame that so many can only think in binaries, linearities, and simplicities.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  9 January 2020 at 3:30 pm

                  Sometimes simple is best, better than looking so deep into everything you don't see whats really there

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    9 January 2020 at 4:03 pm

                    We're all someone's daughter
                    We're all someone's son
                    How long can we look at each other
                    Down the barrel of a gun?
                    https://genius.com/John-farnham-youre-the-voice-lyrics

                    Shame ‘the right‘ almost seem elated by the extrajudicial killing of these 'top dawgs'.

                    Hail to the top dawg? To quote a former U.S. president, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

                    "Modern psychological understanding of human decision-making has moved beyond availability heuristics and cognitive biases to integrate the role of emotion and affect. Several related models including the “risk-as-feelings hypothesis” (Loewenstein et al., 2001), the “affect heuristic” (Slovic et al., 2007); and the “appraisal-tendency framework” (Lerner et al., 2015) illustrate how emotions can hijack rational-decision-making processes to the point of being the dominant influence on risk assessments. Research has shown that “perceived risk judgments”—estimates of the likelihood that something bad will happen—are especially hampered by emotion (Pachur et al., 2012) and that different types of affect can bias such judgments in different ways (Lerner et al., 2015). For example, fear can in particular bias assessments away from rational analysis to overestimate risks, as well as to perceive negative events as unpredictable (Lerner et al., 2015)."

                    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 4:19 pm

                      Better one top dog dies instead of many lowly soldiers and civilians don't you think

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      9 January 2020 at 4:25 pm

                      Thought it was more than one "top dog" – don't you count?

                      Are you really contending that a humanitarian impulse was the guiding principle behind these extrajudicial executions?

                      Whether the ends justify the means is a question that everyone must answer for themselves. In this instance we each have a different answer.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 4:43 pm

                      're you really contending that a humanitarian impulse was the guiding principle behind these extrajudicial executions?'

                      No but since more lives were saved by not going into a conventional battle we can say its a positive outcome

                      'Whether the ends justify the means is a question that everyone must answer for themselves. In this instance we each have a different answer.'

                      No, if more of the left were honest they'd just come out and say they wanted Trump to go to war because they hate that Trumps presidency is a success making all their predictions of doom look premature and silly

                      All the left is has is what Trump might do, all Trump has is back catalogue of success

                      Which is what the left hate most about Trump, not his tweets, his personal morals but his proof of success

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:01 pm

                      "No, if more of the left were honest they'd just come out and say they wanted Trump to go to war"

                      I'm "of the left" and I definitely don't want "Trump to go to war" (IMHO all who advocate war should be on their respective front lines), so personally I think that particular contention of yours is wacky.

                      Please consider the possibility that it's (far) more likely that people towards the 'right end' of the political spectrum would be more in favour of 'Trump' going to war than those on the left.

                      If you genuinely believe what you're writing, then please consider the possibility that your political bias is warping your perception.

                      I will, however, give your hypothesis about why “the left” hates Trump the consideration it deserves.

                  • Incognito …
                    9 January 2020 at 4:42 pm

                    Ironically, your comment kinda proves my point: keep it simple because you might get lost or drown if you go (too) deep. I think many people don’t to go deep because it is complex but because they might hit on something that does not (easily) fit their confirmation bias and will therefore challenge them. Look at some of the comments here about being “right”. Woohoo! The world as I perceive it is still intact and unchanged! Everybody else is an idiot or barbarian, or whatever label you prefer – there is no shortage of labels and adjectives.

                    Yes, I do realise you said “sometimes” but I ignored it to fit with my narrative 😉

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 4:48 pm

                      To keep it really simple, kill some combatants and the leaders go "oh well thats war" kill some leaders and suddenly the leaders become a bit more circumspect don't you think

                      How keen would you be to make a decision against the USA knowing there just might be a rocket with your name on it

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:10 pm

                      When the stakes are high, leaders go big or go home.

                      Being a bit more circumspect is fine, until they feel the only option available is to go big. And Iran's enriching again.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:22 pm

                      'When the stakes are high, leaders go big or go home.'

                      Trump agrees with this

                      'Being a bit more circumspect is fine, until they feel the only option available is to go big. And Iran's enriching again.'

                      Doesn't matter, now that the leaders know they'll be personally targeted they'll be even less likely to press the button

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:34 pm

                      Doesn't matter, now that the leaders know they'll be personally targeted they'll be even less likely to press the button

                      Nope. A press of the button would have had them targeted anyway.

                      The problem with your argument is that it relies on the lens that all leaders will cynically risk others without accepting the same risks themselves. It wasn't true of bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, Massoud, Castro, and a whole bunch of others. Leaders might not be foolhardy, but they're not "bone-spur" cowards, either.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 9:41 pm

                      'The problem with your argument is that it relies on the lens that all leaders will cynically risk others without accepting the same risks themselves. It wasn't true of bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, Massoud, Castro, and a whole bunch of others. Leaders might not be foolhardy, but they're not "bone-spur" cowards, either.'

                      Usually leaders don't get targeted (a mistake in my opinion) in fact it was George II who was the last leader to lead troops into battle so to me its one thing to make a decision knowing theres virtually no chance of repercussion and an entirely different feeling knowing theres a rocket targeting you that'll blow you to a million little pieces

              • McFlock …
                9 January 2020 at 4:53 pm

                Dude, all I know is that if you kick someone in the nuts and their immediate response is quite mild, some people genuinely let it go and others are just biding their time for a more proportional retaliation (plus interest).

                Maybe the yanks get away with it, maybe not. Neither is a good outcome – this isn't going to be dolt45's last stupid escalation.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  9 January 2020 at 5:08 pm

                  Ok so if you got kicked in the nuts for an action (and like the Iranians knew you deserved it for the action) would you do that action, or bigger, again knowing that the response you'll get is an even worse kicking?

                  Its more like an undisciplined child (the Iranians) saying and doing anything they like because Daddy (Obama) was too weak to discipline them but now theres a new Daddy in the house and the Iranians now know they'll face harsh, but deserved, discipline if they play up

                  https://giphy.com/gifs/kinolorber-scum-ray-winstone-l0IygjoScNy9Qo2iY

                  • McFlock …
                    9 January 2020 at 5:14 pm

                    Alternatively:

                    The bully from across town is in my yard or causing shit on my street? If I can't win facing him front on and there are no cops to go to, you know I'll be waiting in a dark alley when he least expects it.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:18 pm

                      1. Don't annoy a bully by attacking his embassy

                      2. Trump IS the cops

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:24 pm

                      Good comment – I read it an immediately thought "9/11", and the resulting on-going injustice and misery on all ‘sides’. I wonder what Trump might think, if anything.

                      To PR: If “Trump IS the cops”, ask yourself – would all cops (want to) identify with him?

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:43 pm

                      1: spoken like a true man of jelly.

                      2: no, he's just a stupid fucking criminal

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:47 pm

                      1: spoken like a true man of jelly.

                      Yeah sure I am 🙂

                      2: no, he's just a stupid fucking criminal

                      No hes not and hes doing a very good job of being president (which is why the left hate him so much)

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 5:50 pm

                      "To PR: If “Trump IS the cops”, ask yourself – would all cops (want to) identify with him?"

                      Hard to say I mean its a lot of police you're talking about:

                      'In 2018, there were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States. The number of full-time law enforcement officers reached a peak in 2008 with 708,569 officers, and hit a low in 2013 with 626,942 officers.'

                      https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/

                      T

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 6:03 pm

                      I just hope you don't apply the "don't mess with bullies and they won't mess with you" approach in your daily life.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 6:21 pm

                      'I just hope you don't apply the "don't mess with bullies and they won't mess with you" approach in your daily life.'

                      I find being firm but fair is generally the best course of action for me in my day to day life but then I'm also not the sort of person that thinks attacking the worlds most powerful nations embassy a good idea

                      (10 months and counting on the floor so far, at what point in time do my views carry any sort of validity)

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 6:37 pm

                      Your views are always valid. Just not always consistent 🙂

                      A wee protest is fair, no?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      9 January 2020 at 6:54 pm

                      "In 2018, there were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States."

                      Presumably not all cops then, so actually not that hard to say.

                      PR, do you ever wonder why you find some simple 'Yes or No' questions about 'righties' difficult to answer, while being so certain about lefty thoughts and motivations? I don't.

                      "Which is what the left hate most about Trump… success."

                      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keanu-reeves-trump-successful-man/

                      “Trump has a troubled relationship with the truth and facts, and a documented record of embellishing his accomplishments. Since entering the White House, Trump has made at least 15,413 false or misleading claims, according to an analysis from The Washington Post. Virtually all politicians bend the truth, but Trump has excelled in this regard.”
                      https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-biggest-accomplishments-and-failures-heading-into-2020-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 8:07 pm

                      I like to think I'm pretty consistent but others may have different ideas of course

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 9:26 pm

                      I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling the gist of "firm but fair" against bullies with your apparent position that Iran shouldn't have antagonised an aggressive bully.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 9:33 pm

                      'I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling the gist of "firm but fair" against bullies with your apparent position that Iran shouldn't have antagonised an aggressive bully.'

                      Well think of it like this then, Iran attacked the american embassy, which is the same as attacking America itself, had Trump not done anything then what would have stopped more attacks against american embassies and more american deaths

                      You say Trump is bullying the Iranians but it could also be said Trump is protecting american embassy workers

                      In answer to your unspoken question: Yes I would have done the same thing as Trump if I was the president of the USA

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 9:51 pm

                      A bunch of (likely) Iranian proxies killed a US mercenary in their country.

                      The yanks killed dozens of those proxies.

                      Other (likely) Iranian proxies did some property damage and killed nobody outside an embassy in a fourth country.

                      US military kill a senior member of the Iranian military (who is on a diplomatic mission).

                      Iranian military directly attacks buildings on US &proxy bases.

                      So who's escalating it, and who is fucking up someone else's neighbourhood? The answer is the same in both cases.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      9 January 2020 at 10:05 pm

                      Good points, always good to see Trump winning in the middle east

                    • Incognito []
                      9 January 2020 at 10:22 pm

                      Oh, yeah! He’s on a winning streak in the ME alright ever since they started the Gulf War.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 January 2020 at 10:46 pm

                      He's escalated it from a proxy confrontation in a place he wants to leave all the way up to a military vs military shooting match, which is just shy of an outright war in a strategic and unstable region of the world.

                      "Winning".

  21. David Stone 21
    9 January 2020 at 9:43 am

    Evidently all missiles hit their targets. This is the most significant aspect of this event. Fars News claims 80 casualties the US claims none. The US claim is hardly credible unless the sites were evacuated beforehand . And a complete failure of any missile defence systems defending the bases will be worrying the shit out of the Yanks unless they were deliberately turned off and the whole event was staged and co-ordinated for public viewing. In both camps. But the US would then seem to have gone away with murdering the top Iranian Military officer. I wonder as others who was on that Ukrainian plane. That might have been the main event.

    I disagree with commenters here that are inclined to credit Trump with all this mad aggression . He seems to be co-operating with it but it's just a continuation of long standing US policies and behaviour , just a bit more blatant than it used to be. Anyone trying to believe that the US would suddenly be all sweetness and light as soon as he goes has not been paying attention. Tulsi Gabbard might change things but she is not going to be allowed near the action.

    D J S

    • joe90 21.1
      9 January 2020 at 9:47 am

      There were no missile defences deployed at either base.

      • Dennis Frank 21.1.1
        9 January 2020 at 10:25 am

        That's very interesting, if true. So the US military were informed by the Iranians that they were going to strike an irrelevant piece of concrete, to avoid casualties, and decided to refrain from taking out the incoming missiles in order to help the Iranians create the impression in muslim minds that suitable punishment had been delivered? Allah's will, I guess…

        Update: LPrent has provided a report of fake news by the Iranians, claiming 80 “American terrorists” got killed by their rockets.

        • joe90 21.1.1.1
          9 January 2020 at 10:40 am

          Up-thread –

          anti-missile defense systems deployed to other locations in Middle East, but not the two Iraqi bases–al-Asad and Erbil

          – and speculation that Iran's response deliberately avoided escalation.

          https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1214941252891873280

          https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1214943712184283136

          https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1214946147455901696

          • Dennis Frank 21.1.1.1.1
            9 January 2020 at 11:29 am

            Thanks, I'm puzzled by that. Choosing to leave two bases undefended makes no sense at all.

            Choosing to target structures instead of people seems vaguely zen. If you live in Iran, your new social reality is 80 American terrorists eliminated. If you outside, you're expected to live in a world where the govt of Iran is non-violent? I can hear the sound of one hand clapping somewhere…

            • Sabine 21.1.1.1.1.1
              9 January 2020 at 9:37 pm

              maybe the point was not to kill people,

              but to show the US that a. their defense system don't work quite as well as they thought they would as all 22 missiles – 17 at the Ain al Assad and 5 at the Erbil base hit their targets. and .b most importantly that they can take out with precision some targets totally.

              so if i were a US general, sleeping somewhere tonight in a secure base somewhere in the middle east, i might be sleeping lightly. 🙂 Just in case.

              One thing that amuses me in all this chit chatter about the prowress of the USA and the lack of total submission by Iran is that Iran is about 7000 years old, literally brougth forth some of the finest war men, wrote the book on war before Sun Tzu was born and invented chess as a way to have war without killing your mates.

              Iran has time. All the time. Iran is their country, the invader however is a sitting duck – be it in Syria (yes they are still there), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, United Emirates and so on and so forth.

              Also anyone reading strenght in the Dotards press conference, drugged to the hilt, barely able to walk 10 feet from a chair to a podium, slurring speech and runny nose has a funny idea of 'strength and fitness'.

              but the main problem that the Dotard has is that of his own making.

              He actually has no government, he has a cadre of acting this and that, most of whom are self dealers and will happily resign once they decide that the going is gonna get tough. and then all he has are his yes man, arse kissers and boot lickes and chances are that these guy are no match for the Iranian government. Because the Iranians have a government.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                9 January 2020 at 9:54 pm

                Of course the point wasn't to kill anyone, the point was to show their own people they were "fighting back" without actually causing Trump to further retaliate

                Yeah the Iranians may have 7000 years or whatever but Trump has the worlds most powerful military and economy to back him up

                But yeah you right in that all they have to do is wait another 4 years and there'll probably be another weak american president who believes appeasement is the way to go

          • Graeme 21.1.1.1.2
            9 January 2020 at 1:31 pm

            I wonder if that hanger housed the airframe that delivered the rocket that snotted the General.

          • Rocco Siffredi 21.1.1.1.3
            9 January 2020 at 6:11 pm

            "“The Iranians are very proud of being able to target specific buildings.”"

            The Scuds Iran are using are lucky to hit a football field, their accuracy is in the order of hundreds of meters. Compare to a US Tomahawk is within a meter. Most of them hit open ground and nothing else.

            • joe90 21.1.1.1.3.1
              9 January 2020 at 6:24 pm

              Source on the accuracy or lack of, of Iranian missiles?

              i*metre*

            • McFlock 21.1.1.1.3.2
              9 January 2020 at 6:30 pm

              Scud-C's are the Qiam 1's granddaddy.

              Apparently the guidance systems have received a lot of attention since then. Which makes sense. Although on the flipside Iran does like to overcook the capabilities of its new weapons: Wikipedia reckons all the qiam 1s failed.

              But the same article suggests the Fateh-110s were pretty effective.

              • Rocco Siffredi …
                13 January 2020 at 9:26 am

                "But the same article suggests the Fateh-110s were pretty effective."

                Ain Assad is about 400km from the nearest point on the Iranian boarder. If Fareh-110's were used, they were fired from a point a couple of hundred kms inside Iraq.

                I think you will find it is very unlikely a Fareh-110 is anything like as effective as claimed, it's just an upgraded FROG-7, which is not exactly precise. It could be relied on to get within 1km of it's target.

                • McFlock …
                  13 January 2020 at 1:03 pm

                  mis-link in the wiki page that I overlooked – fatah-313 has the legs.

                  But the photo suggests they hit several buildings, far closer than the usual open spaces around an airport would warrant by pure chance.

                  • Rocco Siffredi …
                    13 January 2020 at 2:28 pm

                    "But the photo suggests they hit several buildings, far closer than the usual open spaces around an airport would warrant by pure chance."

                    One building on the hardstand was hit. 3 landed close to small out buildings. This from a total of 22 missiles fired.

                    Just for resolution, that photo shows an area a bit over 1.5m wide and 1km top to bottom. It does look like a case of random chance far more than a demonstration of marksmanship.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2020 at 2:52 pm

                      Dunno about "far more". Sure, I wouldn't discount the possibility outright, but everything in that shot hit something, and there are some pretty wide open spaces in that frame.

                      Yeah, it could be a sample error of a shotgun blast (pick has five impacts, document says 6-10 missiles). But could also be a fair representation of the effects and intended targets.

  22. mosa 22
    9 January 2020 at 10:51 am

    " “Remember—everything you hear from Trump and his cronies about Iran, like everything else he says, is a lie,” he wrote in an Instagram post after Iranian missile strikes on U.S. targets in Iraq on Wednesday morning "

    Michael Moore’s response and apology regarding the recent action by America.

    https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/443944/Michael-Moore-asks-Americans-not-to-believe-Trump-s-lies-about

  23. Puckish Rogue 23
    9 January 2020 at 12:51 pm

    So once again Trump shows he knows best and that deterrence is a much better policy than appeasement

    Who'da thunk it…

    • Macro 23.1
      9 January 2020 at 1:07 pm

      You obviously.

      But as the saying goes – don't believe everything you think.

      • Puckish Rogue 23.1.1
        9 January 2020 at 1:19 pm

        Trump reacted to the killing of an american by killing one of Irans top people and Irans response is a lot of hot air and some missles launched (after warning everyone)

        Trump is doing the right thing here, instead of throwing away a lot of lives, he goes after the top dogs

        I imagine it'd be easy to throw away the lives of true believers, conscripted and enlisted soldiers, civilians etc etc but Trump went after the top, he brought home the reality, and futility, of their actions

        How eager for war and violence do you think the leaders will be knowing that Trump has a rocket aimed at them

        Sure there'll be low level engagements but war, nope not going to happen and Iran will be very careful and selective about its targets

        • Psycho Milt 23.1.1.1
          9 January 2020 at 1:26 pm

          I guess the rest of us just get to hope that this gang-rivalry approach to diplomacy that you're so keen on doesn't achieve wider popularity.

          • Puckish Rogue 23.1.1.1.1
            9 January 2020 at 1:38 pm

            Sure lets try appeasement instead because that worked out so well last time

            • the other pat 23.1.1.1.1.1
              9 January 2020 at 5:20 pm

              "Whether the ends justify the means is a question that everyone must answer for themselves"…. you reckon

              ….well while you argue intellectually about how right and wrong this is i'll just get all emotional and call you and your ilk MORONS.

              you kill because someone might/has/could kill one of your mates and you debate how fucking allright that is to be the thing you supposedly hate and and abhor by doing the same thing….oh isn't that just the best cure in the world!! we are long overdue for a change and i just hope and act that the good/peaceful/fair people in this world stop talking about the problems and actually DO something……the time of the self interested is coming to its end….Happy noo year!

              the sooner we all get off this madness loop and start

            • McFlock 23.1.1.1.1.2
              9 January 2020 at 7:58 pm

              Those aren't the only two alternative.

        • Gabby 23.1.1.2
          9 January 2020 at 2:56 pm

          He's a top dog puckers, he wants to think on that.

        • Macro 23.1.1.3
          9 January 2020 at 4:09 pm

          Actually we still do not know if that is the last of Iran's response or not. Whatever they do is up to them, and they aren't going to be posting it online unlike tweetie bird. However, there are obviously more sensible decision makers in Iran than in the White House.

          But what we do know is that Iran is unlikely to be indulging in illegal acts of warfare, unlike the Chump. Note that they:

          a. Signalled the attack prior to it being carried out – thereby allowing personnel to evacuate.

          b. Knew that the US had rented out their air defences on those two bases so they would not be unable to protect them,

          c. Targeted hangers at the bases rather than accommodation buildings, so as to reduce the possibility of inflicting civilian casualties, while still targeting specific military installations.

          As for the the desired purpose of stopping Iran enrichment of Uranium and the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons – which if you can remember back far enough, was the original purpose of all this – well the stable "genius" has done exceptionally well on that account hasn't he.

          • Puckish Rogue 23.1.1.3.1
            9 January 2020 at 4:28 pm

            Actually we do know that they're not going to start a war. We do know that any response will be muted and we do know Trump has cooled tensions in Iran.

            At anytime Trump can raise sanctions or, if he so chooses, can absolutely decimate Irans economy by taking out the port on Kharg Island

            Trump knows this, Iran knows this, Iran don't want a war and Trump doesn't want a war so there'll be no war

            Terrorist acts sure, its the middle east, but there'll be no war no matter how much the left want it

            • Macro 23.1.1.3.1.1
              9 January 2020 at 5:21 pm

              So how does this reduce the enrichment of Uranium by Iran? And how has this reduced tension in Iran? By all accounts there is voluble anger in the country, and around 60 people dead just from the ferment at the funeral. This is not going away any time soon. Remember it was a month after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand to the declaration of war on Serbia by Austria.

              Furthermore there are many out factors that are similar to what happened around 100 years ago to what is now happening in the middle-east. Depravation of resources fuelling imperialist expansion, the rise of nationalism undermining diplomacy, entangled alliances, and militarism leading to an arms race. All of these factor are in play in the Middle East right now. The stupid Chump who has no idea what he is actually doing, apart from feeding his own ego, has just thrown a match into a volatile bonfire. No one knows what is going to happen, and just because a few days after it hasn't flared up, doesn't mean it won't. So I wouldn't be too confident, until at least a month has gone by, and then it maybe that Iran is just biding its time.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                9 January 2020 at 5:30 pm

                Of course in a months time this'll be forgotten about (probably in a weeks time even) so you won't have to worry about it

                • Macro …
                  9 January 2020 at 6:34 pm

                  Yeah. I'm sure Iran has forgotten about it already.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    9 January 2020 at 6:46 pm

                    Like they also haven't forgotten their number two guy getting blown to smithereens and not being able to do a thing about it

                    • Macro …
                      9 January 2020 at 7:41 pm

                      Sez you.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      9 January 2020 at 11:26 pm

                      "Terrorist acts sure…", such as "their number two guy getting blown to smithereens", along with a few collateral kills.

                      The appeal of "might makes right" – just 1 more little war crime, OK?

                      "Our enemies act without conscience. We must not."

                      Consider how radically different McCain's words are from Trump's recent utterances about what would happen to Iran if they retaliate for Soleimani's death. Then consider that both men ran for president — just eight years apart — on the idea of American exceptionalism. The difference? McCain knew what those words actually meant. Trump has twisted them to mean something along the lines of winners write history. Or: If your enemies do it, then you can (and should) do it too.

                      That's not American exceptionalism. It's the opposite.

                      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/donald-trump-iran-soleimani/index.html

  24. infused 24
    9 January 2020 at 1:05 pm

    This is a pretty good piece actually and sums up what I said at the beginning

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/118678044/us-knew-iranian-missiles-were-coming-hours-in-advance

    Obama was a pussy and allowed Iran to walk all over the US. Trump had to act hard and it looks like its worked

    • Macro 24.1
      9 January 2020 at 1:08 pm

      LOL

    • Psycho Milt 24.2
      9 January 2020 at 1:24 pm

      Obama was a pussy and allowed Iran to walk all over the US.

      Or, to put it another way, Obama didn't go assassinating the officials of foreign countries. I note without further comment that even Adolf Hitler, not generally noted for his commitment to rule of law, regarded assassinating foreign countries' officials as being too dishonourable for him to soil his hands with. How times have changed.

      • infused 24.2.1
        9 January 2020 at 1:25 pm

        no, he just handed them create loads of $100 bills and said "please be good"

        Ah the old Hitler line. Is that seriously all you lot have?

      • Puckish Rogue 24.2.2
        9 January 2020 at 1:32 pm

        There was going to be a response from America about the Iran attack, one way or another it was going to happen however I'd suggest less people were killed by Trumps drone attack then if they'd gone in with troops

        Also had troops gone in then the deaths would have been the troops following the orders and civilians getting in the way, far better for the guys giving the orders to get killed then the people who:

        joined up because its the only way for them to afford an education

        wanted a job

        happen to be in the way

        Generally speaking poorer people, women and children are more likely to be killed in these types of engagements

        Now leaders actually have to consider the real possibility that they themselves will get killed, will they be so eager to go to war now?

    • joe90 24.3
      9 January 2020 at 1:26 pm

      Nice that tRump kicked off today's sniff-fest by quoting Obama about Iran not getting a nuclear weapon.

      Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon

      – Obama, August 2015

    • Incognito 24.4
      9 January 2020 at 2:01 pm

      Strike me down with a feather! You are not the only one who thinks that way!? You must be ecstatic and so so pleased with yourself with being right.

      As long as nobody raises the ire of Trump, I’m cool with whatever narrative you like to believe. And you know what, Trump seems to believe he’s pulled it off too. Cool bananas.

  25. UncookedSelachimorpha 25
    9 January 2020 at 1:08 pm

    I wonder if Trump's subdued response to the Iranian attack has a lot to do with oil prices – the USA electorate might not reward him for spiking petrol prices at the pump?

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/business/oil-prices-iran-attack-iraq/index.html

  26. Fireblade 26
    9 January 2020 at 1:59 pm

    Trump has sent a clear message to his adversaries that he won't follow through with his threats made on twitter.

    • Incognito 26.1
      9 January 2020 at 2:09 pm

      He’s a man of his word, or his tweets rather. We can trust him on that.

      • Macro 26.1.1
        9 January 2020 at 5:28 pm

        Well apart from building a wall and making Mexico pay for it..devil

        • Puckish Rogue 26.1.1.1
          9 January 2020 at 5:52 pm

          To be fair its not like he isn't getting blocked at every turn

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall

          On December 10, a federal judge in Texas blocked the use of military funds for building the wall, but ten days later, Trump signed a spending bill with about $1.4 billion allotted for it

          • Macro 26.1.1.1.1
            9 January 2020 at 6:01 pm

            And Mexico is paying for it?

            To date around 86 mile of existing wall has been replaced.

            The are good reasons why Courts are not allowing further building, many of them environmental, and the misappropriation of funds. But of course that means nothing an environmental vandal like the orange one.

          • McFlock 26.1.1.1.2
            13 January 2020 at 11:10 pm

            1: why does he need federal funds of any allocated line item if Mexico is paying for it?

            2: Damn those checks and balances stopping him cashing cheques from balances congress told him to use for other stuff.

  27. WeTheBleeple 27
    10 January 2020 at 8:45 am

    PR is a paid troll how could he possibly have the time to spout his drivel for so long and in such volume with a day job? He reckons Trump's done nothing wrong, so he is either severely mentally deficient, or… a deliberate provocateur and time waster. You get a few here that's why I rarely ever bother with the place as it goes on relatively unchecked forever. Then I call out a POS for being an inhuman asshole and liar and I get moderated. Bit of a joke.

    • Incognito 27.1
      10 January 2020 at 4:14 pm

      I’ll try to explain how it works here on TS.

      Many of us know PR’s background and what he does for a living because he’s shared it here with us, many times. IIRC, he does long shifts (shift work) and maybe he’s on holiday (t’is the holiday season, after all).

      AFAIK, he’s not a paid troll but he can be provocative and a bit of a stirrer, e.g. with his Judith Collins infatuation.

      He’s copped a few bans in the past. The last one was in Sep 2019 for three months.

      He gave his opinion under this post and received a lot of pushback, all of which was within the boundaries of robust debate. Whether he was 100% genuine, we cannot tell for sure but he sure is not the only one with that opinion on Trump and the assassination. Thus, it is worth listening and countering because otherwise we’ll end up in an echo chamber in which we only have each other to agree or disagree with (more of the latter).

      Robust debate consists by addressing the points and not by calling the other person a PoS, inhuman asshole, a liar, or any other insult. For example, if they lie you pull them up on it and point out the lie.

      As long as you keep the personal insults out and address the points you won’t get moderated for making insults and attacking others.

  28. WeTheBleeple 28
    10 January 2020 at 7:40 pm

    If he had something original to contribute other than sad infatuation it might be tolerable. As it stands he repeats FOX news talking points ad nauseum. Also deliberately seeks a contrary position to practically anything just for the sake of it. Troll.

    Tell me where, truthfully, is Trump doing a great job? What point of him is the right fixated upon as a success?

    He is a vile POS as anyone with any empathy at all can see. As for narcissist, sociopath, corrupt: yes, yes and yes. Racist, sexist homophobe – yes, yes, yes. Compulsive liar, bully, coward – yes yes yes. You get the pattern…

    Our tolerance for people deliberately breaking the world and bullying its occupants is truly staggering. Yet to suggest they all need a tune up is met with horror.

    We'll rue the day we ever turned the other cheek for that lot.

    • Incognito 28.1
      10 January 2020 at 9:54 pm

      Dislike is not a reason for banning here. Nor for insulting.

      Having a different or even contrary opinion that is unpopular here is no reason for banning either. Nor an excuse for personal insults.

      The day that the TS community cannot tolerate dissent, has no resilience against criticism, and resorts to personal attacks and insults by default instead of raising strong counter arguments and robust debate will be a sad day indeed. Hopefully, that day is a long way off.

      I’d like to think we are open to constructive criticism but it would be rather foolish to try to please and appease everyone all the time.

      TS is what we make of it, all together. Drag it down to the gutter and this will become the lowest and common denominator, as other NZ blogs have shown.

      FWIW, I do think that PR does make valuable contributions here.

      • WeTheBleeple 28.1.1
        13 January 2020 at 9:38 pm

        OK I do understand this all a bit better now. Thank you for taking the time to reply. My troll-o-meter gets twitchy every time the children in charge start lobbing weaponry around and people defend it. Captain Cheeto got caught being a scumbag so he murdered people to change the conversation. The pedigree of who he killed doesn't matter, it's the fact he did it. Murder in the mass media, and not a cop in sight. But murder, you know, there's good people on both sides… NO. Now the reports of the plans to attack the US are of course unavailable as, like the WMD's, they are the fabrication of murderous men. War crimes are acceptable, murder, even asbestos gets a nod in Trumps great new world. His supporters are enablers. Be they ignorant, or worse, evil.

        • Incognito 28.1.1.1
          13 January 2020 at 9:58 pm

          Ta

          Being a Moderator forced me to re-calibrate my own troll-o-meter because it frequently went berserkers when reading comments and this had a negative impact on my immediate environment (AKA home-life).

          The thing is we cannot do a ‘reverse genie’ and wish our own actions undone nor can we wish others away. Refusing to accept this can lead to windmill cancer https://alternative-science.com/signs-windmill/

          • Macro 28.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2020 at 10:26 pm

            OMG!

            I checked out on all of the first 5 symptoms! I'm not going to see the doctor because that could be fatal.

            • Incognito 28.1.1.1.1.1
              13 January 2020 at 10:35 pm

              If you think you have it, you most likely have it bad already. My advice would be to treasure every moment and every day and be the best you can be for the little time that is left.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.