hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1059 of 1080 FirstFirst ... 595599591009104910561057105810591060106110621069 ... LastLast
Results 21,161 to 21,180 of 21600

Thread: Jihadist Caliphate LLC. Extremist Thunderdome's everywhere.

  1. #21161
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Liare sides with Iran in non-shocker.
    I would argue me and Liare are saying actions have consequences.
    Yeah this is a pretty clear cut case of sabre rattling gone wrong. Hot on the heels of that blatantly obvious false flag attack too.

  2. #21162
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,921
    Are they going to start seizing Brazilian ships as well?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1UE2PP

    Two more Iranian bulk carriers that came to Brazil carrying urea and were expected to return home with corn could be left without enough fuel, as Brazilian state oil firm Petrobras refuses to provide them with bunker fuel due to U.S. sanctions.
    meh

  3. #21163
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Liare sides with Iran in non-shocker.
    Alistair in completely failing to grasp nuance non-shocker.

    but then that's to be expected, after all Americans seem to imagine the world in black and white, so if you're not completely sympathetic to every action carried out by the US or its allies you're obviously the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Are they going to start seizing Brazilian ships as well?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1UE2PP

    Two more Iranian bulk carriers that came to Brazil carrying urea and were expected to return home with corn could be left without enough fuel, as Brazilian state oil firm Petrobras refuses to provide them with bunker fuel due to U.S. sanctions.
    considering that it's a state owned company, i would be surprised if they didn't retaliate in some capacity.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  4. #21164
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Liare sides with Iran in non-shocker.
    Alistair in completely failing to grasp nuance non-shocker.

    but then that's to be expected, after all Americans seem to imagine the world in black and white, so if you're not completely sympathetic to every action carried out by the US or its allies you're obviously the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Are they going to start seizing Brazilian ships as well?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1UE2PP

    Two more Iranian bulk carriers that came to Brazil carrying urea and were expected to return home with corn could be left without enough fuel, as Brazilian state oil firm Petrobras refuses to provide them with bunker fuel due to U.S. sanctions.
    considering that it's a state owned company, i would be surprised if they didn't retaliate in some capacity.
    >MFW Iran exports piss...


  5. #21165
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Isn't that haram?

  6. #21166
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Alistair in completely failing to grasp nuance non-shocker.

    but then that's to be expected, after all Americans seem to imagine the world in black and white, so if you're not completely sympathetic to every action carried out by the US or its allies you're obviously the enemy.


    It would take you less than a minute of actually reading my posts to know how utterly full of shit that statement is.

    But sure.

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Last edited by Alistair; July 21 2019 at 12:58:55 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Just in case this isn't clear by now (and it really shouldn't be necessary to point out, you're all grownups) saying that people should be killed because of their political or religious convictions IS NOT FUCKING OK. Tempban handed out in the movie thread. Apply a minimum of self control ffs

  7. #21167
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  8. #21168
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    The rational thing for them to do is to bow down and pretend to accept US hegemony like Saudi Arabia and Israel have while not-so-secretly using the shield of US protection to advance their own geopolitical interests /s

    Also pay back BP et al for nationalizing their oil (the real reason the west hates them, just like the condition for lifting the Cuban embargo is paying for all the stuff they nationalised from US companies)
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; July 21 2019 at 01:26:29 PM.

  9. #21169
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    Given how crippled their economy is, not really.

  10. #21170
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    as i said, you have no conception of nuance what so ever.
    you're running the wild-ass assumption that i am siding with Iran because i am critical of US, and in this case the UK is acting as the extended arm of US foreign policy.

    rather than, you know, looking at them as any other reasonably rational state actor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    Given how crippled their economy is, not really.
    it's not going to get any less crippled by playing hardball the way they are currently, and there is a lot of foreign policy "points" to score with other actors by doing so.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  11. #21171
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    as i said, you have no conception of nuance what so ever.
    you're running the wild-ass assumption that i am siding with Iran because i am critical of US, and in this case the UK is acting as the extended arm of US foreign policy.

    rather than, you know, looking at them as any other reasonably rational state actor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    Given how crippled their economy is, not really.
    it's not going to get any less crippled by playing hardball the way they are currently, and there is a lot of foreign policy "points" to score with other actors by doing so.
    That’s not what the data says.

    In any event, when you back someone into a corner they get aggressive, the US has made it difficult for Iran not to be aggressive.

  12. #21172
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,572
    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    (Talking about UK, and somewhat siding with Iran)
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  13. #21173
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    A State engaged in funding terrorism and trying to get nukes so they can nuke their neighbors, all led by a Government based around an extreme version of worship of a specific sky wizard only?

    A State with no meaningful conventional military power going up against a rusty Super Power and a mediocre regional power, potentially backed by the EU, who collectively outgun them a million times over? And whose only real defense is Russia, and a risk of a global war?

    Yeah, it's safe to say I think they're acting irrationally.

    I think many nations are acting irrationally these days, including the UK and US too. Answering irrational with irrational is still stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    as i said, you have no conception of nuance what so ever.
    you're running the wild-ass assumption that i am siding with Iran because i am critical of US, and in this case the UK is acting as the extended arm of US foreign policy.
    No mate, no assumptions.

    You've made it very clear in other threads that you actively look forward to the end of the world, the end of western civilization, so that your utopian anarcho-collectivist world of agrarian subsistence living in a world without states or governments can arise.

    i.e. you're a silly dreamer living with his head in the clouds actively rooting for end of World shit, extreme-Christ Worshipper style, that could kill alot of people in the real world.

    A person who cares about other people would want less tension, less war, and a peaceful deescalation.

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Just in case this isn't clear by now (and it really shouldn't be necessary to point out, you're all grownups) saying that people should be killed because of their political or religious convictions IS NOT FUCKING OK. Tempban handed out in the movie thread. Apply a minimum of self control ffs

  14. #21174
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    bow down and pretend to accept US hegemony like Saudi Arabia and Israel have
    aahahahahahahhalnaljdnfkandfnafd

  15. #21175
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    P.S. You're not the "enemy". Siding with Iran is just par for the course with you.
    Surely you can see the motivations behind Iran's actions in the context of the last several weeks though? Would you argue they are acting irrationally?
    A State engaged in funding terrorism and trying to get nukes so they can nuke their neighbors, all led by a Government based around an extreme version of worship of a specific sky wizard only?
    There was a certain deal with international backing and controls in place to stop that before 2016.

    Also, the west is unofficially allied to a theocratic monarchy that styles themselves as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and is actively waging a genocidal campaign against one of their neighbors.

    Oh, and gives a pass to the ethnic cleansing and apartheid practices of another state in the region who also is heavily influenced by groups that want to restore 'greater israel'

    It's safe to say there are no good actors in the region.

    A State with no meaningful conventional military power going up against a rusty Super Power and a mediocre regional power, potentially backed by the EU, who collectively outgun them a million times over? And whose only real defense is Russia, and a risk of a global war?
    A campaign against Iran would be extremely costly in lives and in naval resources. The US determined this in an infamously buried exercise back in 2002 called Millennium Challenge, where the redfor commander representing Iran destroyed an entire carrier group using suicide speedboats and a massive volley of antiship missiles.

    Not to say the US couldn't topple the Iranian state, but Iran is not a flat open plain like Iraq which was perfectly vulnerable to a combined arms blitz to the capital.
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; July 21 2019 at 06:29:44 PM.

  16. #21176
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    A State engaged in funding terrorism and trying to get nukes so they can nuke their neighbors, all led by a Government based around an extreme version of worship of a specific sky wizard only?
    the thing is Alistair, they're going up against a state engaged in funding terrorism who has unilaterally pulled out of a nuclear profileration deal AND handed nuclear tech to their regional rival, a country that is led by a government that can barely be termed democratic, with a imbecelic demented reality tv-star at the helm. a state that has, in the past engaged in multiple coup attempts and sold chemical weapons to a nation they where at war with leading to massive civilian casualties.

    to be honest, if you want to start tallying up the "evil points" the hands of the US aren't just bloody, they're something straight out of the Hellraiser dimension.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    A State with no meaningful conventional military power going up against a rusty Super Power and a mediocre regional power, potentially backed by the EU, who collectively outgun them a million times over? And whose only real defense is Russia, and a risk of a global war?

    Yeah, it's safe to say I think they're acting irrationally.
    no, they are not. there are no positive outcomes of a war with Iran for the US and it's allies, therefore it is therefore completely rational to play a game of brinksmanship, the real danger there is that Bolton and his merry band of war criminals have already decided to not behave in a rational manner to force a war, with predictable and catastrophic global consequences. but then, that's obviously the goal of some actors anyway, so no matter what Iran actually does, that outcome is more or less fixed. either way, nothing is lost by playing hardball and actually playing "hardball" in turn indicate they're willing to walk all the way possibly causing previously mentioned band of lunatics to back down.

    and sitting back passively didn't work terribly well for Iraq, so there is no reason to take that tack, what so ever, indeed not going "tit for tat" When say, the UK decides to flat out illegally seize a tanker would be a sign of weakness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I think many nations are acting irrationally these days, including the UK and US too. Answering irrational with irrational is still stupid.
    the entire thing is a manucfactured problem originating in the US, it's truly breathtaking that the US government is willing to gamble with the entire region in order to deface one of the few positive things Obama did in terms of foreign policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    No mate, no assumptions.

    You've made it very clear in other threads that you actively look forward to the end of the world, the end of western civilization, so that your utopian anarcho-collectivist world of agrarian subsistence living in a world without states or governments can arise.

    i.e. you're a silly dreamer living with his head in the clouds actively rooting for end of World shit, extreme-Christ Worshipper style, that could kill alot of people in the real world.

    A person who cares about other people would want less tension, less war, and a peaceful deescalation.
    man, that is some strong stuff you're on there, can you pass the bong because i want a huff of that!
    if you actually wanted a peaceful de-escalation you'd be calling out your own governments shit, because the entire "crisis" is driven entirely by Washington, no what you want is to see Iran roll over and surrender so you can wave your imaginary "America FUCK YEA!" flag about for a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    A campaign against Iran would be extremely costly in lives and in naval resources. The US determined this in an infamously buried exercise back in 2002 called Millennium Challenge, where the redfor commander representing Iran destroyed an entire carrier group using suicide speedboats and a massive volley of antiship missiles.

    Not to say the US couldn't topple the Iranian state, but Iran is not a flat open plain like Iraq which was perfectly vulnerable to a combined arms blitz to the capital.
    that's not the problem, the problem is what happens when the desalination and oil refining infrastructure on the Arabian peninsula are levelled by theatre ballistic missiles.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  17. #21177
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    A campaign against Iran would be extremely costly in lives and in naval resources. The US determined this in an infamously buried exercise back in 2002 called Millennium Challenge, where the redfor commander representing Iran destroyed an entire carrier group using suicide speedboats and a massive volley of antiship missiles.

    Not to say the US couldn't topple the Iranian state, but Iran is not a flat open plain like Iraq which was perfectly vulnerable to a combined arms blitz to the capital.
    I know this is a nice fantasy, but if the gloves come off, it really wouldn't be costly in a naval sense. In a ground war sense, yes. Do you really think the bluefor that got the carrier group sunk in the wargame didn't learn from it as well?
    meh

  18. #21178
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    A campaign against Iran would be extremely costly in lives and in naval resources. The US determined this in an infamously buried exercise back in 2002 called Millennium Challenge, where the redfor commander representing Iran destroyed an entire carrier group using suicide speedboats and a massive volley of antiship missiles.

    Not to say the US couldn't topple the Iranian state, but Iran is not a flat open plain like Iraq which was perfectly vulnerable to a combined arms blitz to the capital.
    I know this is a nice fantasy, but if the gloves come off, it really wouldn't be costly in a naval sense. In a ground war sense, yes. Do you really think the bluefor that got the carrier group sunk in the wargame didn't learn from it as well?
    The problem in the strait of hormuz and the persian gulf is that the shore is so close to the shipping lanes that there wouldn't be much time to counter an ASM swarm if the Iranians attack preemptively, even if their tech is dated they have a lot of launchers (just like Turkey in the Bosphorus)

    I'm sure the big brains in charge of certain aspects of naval strategy and planning have learned from the exercise and the USN has indeed been investing heavily in point defense technology. Maybe USN capability has finally reached the point where they can counter ASM swarm attacks now.

    Or maybe there's enough yesmen in the right positions to give limp-dick Bolton the answers he wants when he asks "can we do this" so hes got the cover needed to push for an escalation to war now. IDK.

  19. #21179
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    A campaign against Iran would be extremely costly in lives and in naval resources. The US determined this in an infamously buried exercise back in 2002 called Millennium Challenge, where the redfor commander representing Iran destroyed an entire carrier group using suicide speedboats and a massive volley of antiship missiles.

    Not to say the US couldn't topple the Iranian state, but Iran is not a flat open plain like Iraq which was perfectly vulnerable to a combined arms blitz to the capital.
    I know this is a nice fantasy, but if the gloves come off, it really wouldn't be costly in a naval sense. In a ground war sense, yes. Do you really think the bluefor that got the carrier group sunk in the wargame didn't learn from it as well?
    The problem in the strait of hormuz and the persian gulf is that the shore is so close to the shipping lanes that there wouldn't be much time to counter an ASM swarm if the Iranians attack preemptively, even if their tech is dated they have a lot of launchers (just like Turkey in the Bosphorus)

    I'm sure the big brains in charge of certain aspects of naval strategy and planning have learned from the exercise and the USN has indeed been investing heavily in point defense technology. Maybe USN capability has finally reached the point where they can counter ASM swarm attacks now.

    Or maybe there's enough yesmen in the right positions to give limp-dick Bolton the answers he wants when he asks "can we do this" so hes got the cover needed to push for an escalation to war now. IDK.
    Or maybe everything gets dumped on be strat air before the battle group gets anywhere near Hormuz.
    meh

  20. #21180
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    A campaign against Iran would be extremely costly in lives and in naval resources. The US determined this in an infamously buried exercise back in 2002 called Millennium Challenge, where the redfor commander representing Iran destroyed an entire carrier group using suicide speedboats and a massive volley of antiship missiles.

    Not to say the US couldn't topple the Iranian state, but Iran is not a flat open plain like Iraq which was perfectly vulnerable to a combined arms blitz to the capital.
    I know this is a nice fantasy, but if the gloves come off, it really wouldn't be costly in a naval sense. In a ground war sense, yes. Do you really think the bluefor that got the carrier group sunk in the wargame didn't learn from it as well?
    The problem in the strait of hormuz and the persian gulf is that the shore is so close to the shipping lanes that there wouldn't be much time to counter an ASM swarm if the Iranians attack preemptively, even if their tech is dated they have a lot of launchers (just like Turkey in the Bosphorus)

    I'm sure the big brains in charge of certain aspects of naval strategy and planning have learned from the exercise and the USN has indeed been investing heavily in point defense technology. Maybe USN capability has finally reached the point where they can counter ASM swarm attacks now.

    Or maybe there's enough yesmen in the right positions to give limp-dick Bolton the answers he wants when he asks "can we do this" so hes got the cover needed to push for an escalation to war now. IDK.
    Or maybe everything gets dumped on be strat air before the battle group gets anywhere near Hormuz.
    Good thing that Russia refused to sell the S-400 to Iran then. So much for that Russian support, strike mission is a GO!

    https://en.radiofarda.com/a/russia-r.../29975011.html

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •