War with Iran?
-
- Posts: 9325
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4105 times
- Has Liked: 6588 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: War with Iran?
52 - 48 may not be a resounding answer to the question, but the question was asked and it was answered. You can’t just say “oh it’s too close to do anything” or “they asked the wrong question” as a means of allowing the minority vote to win the day. Not respecting that result, throwing out more arguments and asking for another referendum “to bring the country together” is as undemocratic as it comes. Failing to see this is one of the major reasons why the election result WAS a resounding answer. If the result of the first referendum can’t be respected, why would anyone believe a second one would, and if the result remained the same (the GE result suggests it would) why would anyone believe that one would be honoured?
Suggesting the majority of leave voters wanted a deal is guesswork. “Leave with a deal” wasn’t on the referendum ballot paper, yet it’s all that’s talked about. It wasn’t there.... constantly rolling it out as an argument to back up the stance of “block brexit” is why we went to the polls again.
BJ is going to honour the result of the referendum. That’s what the majority wanted. That’s what we are hopefully going to get (there was a time there when I thought it wasn’t going to happen at all) and if that means leaving without a deal, then we just go ahead and make our own deals.
As an aside, my money is on a domino effect... may take a few years but I don’t see a future in the EU as we have come to know it.
Seems like I have guided us off topic there... sorry.
Anyway Iran’s elite troops? If they are anything like Saddams elite republican guard, and it comes down to it, any ground conflict will be over very quickly indeed. Only one country in the Middle East with elite troops.... Israel. Let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that though...
Suggesting the majority of leave voters wanted a deal is guesswork. “Leave with a deal” wasn’t on the referendum ballot paper, yet it’s all that’s talked about. It wasn’t there.... constantly rolling it out as an argument to back up the stance of “block brexit” is why we went to the polls again.
BJ is going to honour the result of the referendum. That’s what the majority wanted. That’s what we are hopefully going to get (there was a time there when I thought it wasn’t going to happen at all) and if that means leaving without a deal, then we just go ahead and make our own deals.
As an aside, my money is on a domino effect... may take a few years but I don’t see a future in the EU as we have come to know it.
Seems like I have guided us off topic there... sorry.
Anyway Iran’s elite troops? If they are anything like Saddams elite republican guard, and it comes down to it, any ground conflict will be over very quickly indeed. Only one country in the Middle East with elite troops.... Israel. Let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that though...
Re: War with Iran?
Trump also, evidently killed an Iraqi general international murder for self gain.
This man is the most evil force on Earth.
This man is the most evil force on Earth.
Re: War with Iran?
Insanity? Is that you?Woodleyclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:33 pmWe need to make it clear to Trump we dont support his latest insanity
Problem is Boris owes Trump big time and its payback time.
Its to stop further murdering and terrorist activity of this rogue and belicose country. Just cant believe you cant see that.
Re: War with Iran?
What is the matter with people like you? Do you support terrorism? Looks like it to me. Of course your the guy who patronizes Burnley voters. That was another stupid comment. Stay down where you belong eh.
Re: War with Iran?
Saudi has nothing to do with this. Neither has previous actions in Iraq or Afghanistan which incidentally in the case of Afghanistan were taken in good faithtiger76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:16 pmAah! regime change in the Middle East,remind me how that's worked out for Iraq,Libya,Syria,in recent years,not to mention Afghanistan.
Just maybe if the Western powers,the US in particular kept their nose out of other countries internal affairs,the planet might be a safer place.
And if the US/Britain and others are preaching morals,and the upholding of human rights,why are they still selling weapons to the Saudi's,which everyone knows are being used in the Yemen.
But then again maybe you support terrorism and things like no medical treatment or education for women
Public execurions and the like. Grow up and get real.
-
- Posts: 10326
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3340 times
- Has Liked: 1960 times
Re: War with Iran?
I see Pence is linking him to the 9/11 attacks without any evidence.
Strange.
Strange.
Re: War with Iran?
Staying up seems to have resorted to personal abuse....a bit Trumpy that! Hopefully, stayingup hasn't got access to weaponry too!
Last edited by IanMcL on Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: War with Iran?
Some people in Iraq were celebrating in the streets due to the terror inflicted by the deceased. Makes you think these guys were not all sweetness and joy.
-
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
- Been Liked: 895 times
- Has Liked: 1102 times
- Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre
Re: War with Iran?
I am sure these guys were sadistic, degenerate thugs. However having them killed without any resort to international law and custom is not right either.
World wars have started over these same sort of actions in the past.
Re: War with Iran?
The question was asked and answered, and a majority of Labour voters went for remain. How else should any Labour leader have responded? People change their minds all the time, and referenda should reflect that. The Athenians had one a week, and would be horrified at the idea of sticking to a decision made four years ago, without a chance to confirm it. Me suggesting a majority of leave voters wanted a deal isn't guesswork, because all the leave advocates insisted we'd get one, and not just a deal but a good deal, and that the EU would be bashing down our door to get one, because they need us more than we need them. They said that anything else was just "project fear" from the remain side. Leave has proved to be wrong in all their promises so far, so good for you for keeping the faith. Let's see how Johnson's promises stack up.bobinho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:55 am52 - 48 may not be a resounding answer to the question, but the question was asked and it was answered. You can’t just say “oh it’s too close to do anything” or “they asked the wrong question” as a means of allowing the minority vote to win the day. Not respecting that result, throwing out more arguments and asking for another referendum “to bring the country together” is as undemocratic as it comes. Failing to see this is one of the major reasons why the election result WAS a resounding answer. If the result of the first referendum can’t be respected, why would anyone believe a second one would, and if the result remained the same (the GE result suggests it would) why would anyone believe that one would be honoured?
Suggesting the majority of leave voters wanted a deal is guesswork. “Leave with a deal” wasn’t on the referendum ballot paper, yet it’s all that’s talked about. It wasn’t there.... constantly rolling it out as an argument to back up the stance of “block brexit” is why we went to the polls again.
BJ is going to honour the result of the referendum. That’s what the majority wanted. That’s what we are hopefully going to get (there was a time there when I thought it wasn’t going to happen at all) and if that means leaving without a deal, then we just go ahead and make our own deals.
As an aside, my money is on a domino effect... may take a few years but I don’t see a future in the EU as we have come to know it.
Seems like I have guided us off topic there... sorry.
Anyway Iran’s elite troops? If they are anything like Saddams elite republican guard, and it comes down to it, any ground conflict will be over very quickly indeed. Only one country in the Middle East with elite troops.... Israel. Let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that though...
I don't think the US will be deterred by Iran's army, but by the people and terrain.
Re: War with Iran?
Saudi has a lot to do with this. Why have we chosen to ally ourselves with a country far more despotic than Iran, and the one from where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from?Stayingup wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:49 amSaudi has nothing to do with this. Neither has previous actions in Iraq or Afghanistan which incidentally in the case of Afghanistan were taken in good faith
But then again maybe you support terrorism and things like no medical treatment or education for women
Public execurions and the like. Grow up and get real.
-
- Posts: 9325
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4105 times
- Has Liked: 6588 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: War with Iran?
"and a majority of Labour voters went for remain. How else should any Labour leader have responded?"
And where were the majority of labour voters that went for remain? Source and proof please...
He should've responded by realising the overwhelming wish was to leave, and got amongst it. He knew better tho. He wouldn't come out with it....he wanted people to guess what he wanted...or maybe he wanted to see how things were going to go and jump on the winning horse at the last minute. He didn't know better though, and it cost him. He should've listened, like Cooper should've listened. Neither of them listened... And now we have BJ. The labour party and Corbyn in particular are responsible for us being where we are right now. I'm not convinced the country absolutely wanted BJ and his buffoonery, i'm more convinced they absolutely DIDN'T want Corbyn and his amazing magic abacus.
And where were the majority of labour voters that went for remain? Source and proof please...
He should've responded by realising the overwhelming wish was to leave, and got amongst it. He knew better tho. He wouldn't come out with it....he wanted people to guess what he wanted...or maybe he wanted to see how things were going to go and jump on the winning horse at the last minute. He didn't know better though, and it cost him. He should've listened, like Cooper should've listened. Neither of them listened... And now we have BJ. The labour party and Corbyn in particular are responsible for us being where we are right now. I'm not convinced the country absolutely wanted BJ and his buffoonery, i'm more convinced they absolutely DIDN'T want Corbyn and his amazing magic abacus.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: War with Iran?
Rocket strikes at US targets in the Middle East,to be expected i suppose,Iran have to be seen to respond at the very least,if for no other reason then keeping their domestic audience onside.
Re: War with Iran?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... tain-votedbobinho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:13 pm"and a majority of Labour voters went for remain. How else should any Labour leader have responded?"
And where were the majority of labour voters that went for remain? Source and proof please...
He should've responded by realising the overwhelming wish was to leave, and got amongst it. He knew better tho. He wouldn't come out with it....he wanted people to guess what he wanted...or maybe he wanted to see how things were going to go and jump on the winning horse at the last minute. He didn't know better though, and it cost him. He should've listened, like Cooper should've listened. Neither of them listened... And now we have BJ. The labour party and Corbyn in particular are responsible for us being where we are right now. I'm not convinced the country absolutely wanted BJ and his buffoonery, i'm more convinced they absolutely DIDN'T want Corbyn and his amazing magic abacus.
See above. The Labour Party stood to lose a lot of support had it come out in favour of leave (and in fact did so during the EU elections). The criticism I'd have of them is they should have forced Johnson into holding a second referendum, in which his deal would be set against Remain. With the Tory opposition they had the numbers to do this. They could have then campaigned on implementing the result. This would have taken brexit off the table as an issue.
What I can't understand about your post is how you can blame Corbyn and Labour for the state the country is in? It's all down to the Tories - they've been in power for nearly ten years, they held the referendum to resolve issues within their party, and they then faffed for three and a half years and got nothing done. I'm sure Corbyn wished none of it ever happened, but he's not actually responsible for any of it.
-
- Posts: 9325
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4105 times
- Has Liked: 6588 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: War with Iran?
If Corbyn and his cronies hadn’t obstructed brexit at every opportunity, then there wouldn’t have been faffing around for three and a half years. They got nothing done purely because of people like JC deliberately trying to have their own way, as opposed to carrying out the democratic will of the people.
You’ve got BJ, because of JC and his absolute unwillingness to talk to anyone unless they are either a terrorist organisation or an ethnic minority.
And the referendum was really designed to quell the popularity of UKIP. Plenty of tories concerned about us being governed by unelected oafs in Brussels and they were possibly seen as a being at a risk of defecting.
Corbyn responsible alright. Maybe not for everything, but his unwillingness to allow the people what THEY wanted has cost him. It may end up costing us all. Time will tell.
You’ve got BJ, because of JC and his absolute unwillingness to talk to anyone unless they are either a terrorist organisation or an ethnic minority.
And the referendum was really designed to quell the popularity of UKIP. Plenty of tories concerned about us being governed by unelected oafs in Brussels and they were possibly seen as a being at a risk of defecting.
Corbyn responsible alright. Maybe not for everything, but his unwillingness to allow the people what THEY wanted has cost him. It may end up costing us all. Time will tell.
-
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 3190 times
Re: War with Iran?
Wow! When you swallow propaganda...you swallow it hook, line & sinker.Stayingup wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:49 amSaudi has nothing to do with this. Neither has previous actions in Iraq or Afghanistan which incidentally in the case of Afghanistan were taken in good faith
But then again maybe you support terrorism and things like no medical treatment or education for women
Public execurions and the like. Grow up and get real.
This action is 'Wagging the Dog' in it's most crude and obvious form.
Re: War with Iran?
What you’re saying is impossible.Between when the vote to pass article fifty made it law and January of last year (or was it December?), Theresa May excluded all the opposition parties from having any input, and she only consulted with them after she had exhausted all her efforts at getting her withdrawal agreement through Parliament. During this long period of time Labour’s position was to negotiate a softer Brexit (not scrap Brexit). As I’ve already pointed out, he didn’t have enough MPs to block it anyway. Read the timeline on this link, and you’ll see that time and time again, whenever May was close to getting an agreement within her own party, someone would resign, or rebel, and she’d end up at square one again. Even after Johnson lost his majority, the house still voted for his deal, and it was the government who withdrew it.bobinho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:11 pmIf Corbyn and his cronies hadn’t obstructed brexit at every opportunity, then there wouldn’t have been faffing around for three and a half years. They got nothing done purely because of people like JC deliberately trying to have their own way, as opposed to carrying out the democratic will of the people.
You’ve got BJ, because of JC and his absolute unwillingness to talk to anyone unless they are either a terrorist organisation or an ethnic minority.
And the referendum was really designed to quell the popularity of UKIP. Plenty of tories concerned about us being governed by unelected oafs in Brussels and they were possibly seen as a being at a risk of defecting.
Corbyn responsible alright. Maybe not for everything, but his unwillingness to allow the people what THEY wanted has cost him. It may end up costing us all. Time will tell.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier ... heresa_May
Re: War with Iran?
It seems likely that the US have some satellite evidence which would pinpoint where the thing was when it was shot down.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:30 amAs I originally wrote, I don't know where exactly it took place, so this is the wiki article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Iran ... ican_drone
Unsurprisingly, both sides claim different locations.
In the absence of their disclosing this footage I'm assuming that on the balance of probability that the drone wasn't in the US box when it went down.
Where's VAR when you need it?
This all sounds a bit bellgrano-esque, but without the huge loss of life. That war also got thatcher re-elected.....
Re: War with Iran?
I bet even Orwell couldn't forcast a generation of people who call themselves "progressive" who defend a regime who sentence people to death for being LGBT etc, against one of the most liberal countries the world has ever seen.
Twitter has a lot to answer for
Twitter has a lot to answer for
These 2 users liked this post: Dazzler burnleymik
Re: War with Iran?
.
Last edited by Zlatan on Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These 2 users liked this post: houseboy Jakubclaret
-
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 3190 times
Re: War with Iran?
Staying up is clearly a few Brain cells short.......... he can't think for himself, he can't put himself in another's shoes. He can only spout what he's read or heard on his right wing media feed....but he does it loudly and with great zeal.
-
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 3190 times
Re: War with Iran?
Facts?........he's not interested in facts & never has been!AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:19 pmWhat you’re saying is impossible.Between when the vote to pass article fifty made it law and January of last year (or was it December?), Theresa May excluded all the opposition parties from having any input, and she only consulted with them after she had exhausted all her efforts at getting her withdrawal agreement through Parliament. During this long period of time Labour’s position was to negotiate a softer Brexit (not scrap Brexit). As I’ve already pointed out, he didn’t have enough MPs to block it anyway. Read the timeline on this link, and you’ll see that time and time again, whenever May was close to getting an agreement within her own party, someone would resign, or rebel, and she’d end up at square one again. Even after Johnson lost his majority, the house still voted for his deal, and it was the government who withdrew it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier ... heresa_May
Re: War with Iran?
Nobody is defending Iran’s regime, but the rule of law against trump’s blatant assassination
Re: War with Iran?
Lots of people insist they haven’t been swayed by the right wing media, and yet insist on things they could only think of as facts because they’ve learned them through the right wing media.Taffy on the wing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:38 amFacts?........he's not interested in facts & never has been!
We’ve all been swayed by the rightwing media.
-
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2240 times
- Has Liked: 1618 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: War with Iran?
That's what people were conned into believing about Iraq, you know, where ISIS was born after Saddam went? What's the point in fuelling anti-Western feeling even more by killing one guy? Trump has succeeded in stirring up even more hatred in the region. It seems we have learned absolutely nothing since Iraq and the same stupid mistakes are being made. And do you really believe that this is anything more than a pre-election campaign stunt. Everyone knows there is nothing better than a good war to boost your ratings in an election year. There was absolutely no reason at all for this act of stupid aggression toward an already unstable state in a massively unstable region.Stayingup wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:53 pmYes in reprisal for them attacking US targets in Iraq. Got what they deserved. Its a dangerous rogue state, whih is fermenting anti- western hatred in the middle east, supporting terrorist groups and fighting Proxy wars to support its anti west programme. and Trump has got them weighed up The attempt by the previous USA adminstartion was admirable but the Iranians just ignored the accord.
How can anyone be fooled with this corrupt regime. Hated by its own subjugated people.
As for war. Maybe. The world will be a better and safer place with this regime gone.
What is to be gained from this? Nothing.
What is there to lose? The very real possibiltiy of a war that may see us (as usual) dragged into, a war against a regime that can count among it's (partial) allies Russia. And indeed to a degree China.
The world was a far more dangerous place after the West illegally toppled Saddam, what makes you assume that the world would be safer after a toppling of Iran? Saber rattling is all very well from behind a keyboard but what happens when thousands start dying?
These 3 users liked this post: Taffy on the wing tiger76 longsidepies
Re: War with Iran?
lot of people arguing about things they actually have no real knowledge about and can not connect dots other than, someone (more than one actually but it only matters about the one) killed, ahh Trump yes stupid move.
There are so many nuances, twist and turns leading up to this and there will be quite a few more in the future, which will all be pinned back to this moment in time because Trump takes responsibility for it.
Then of course there is the chance for some to pontificate and try to get there political views over and of course try to score points regarding Brexit which has nothing to do with this event, you lot would make great panelists for a TV show
There are so many nuances, twist and turns leading up to this and there will be quite a few more in the future, which will all be pinned back to this moment in time because Trump takes responsibility for it.
Then of course there is the chance for some to pontificate and try to get there political views over and of course try to score points regarding Brexit which has nothing to do with this event, you lot would make great panelists for a TV show
-
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3080 times
- Has Liked: 5049 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: War with Iran?
What are the facts?Taffy on the wing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:38 amFacts?........he's not interested in facts & never has been!
The only thing definite is the USA took this guy out.
Half the world looked on him as a hero, the other half as a terrorist. He does appear to have been instrumental in propping up Assad in Syria, who is a despot.
The problem with the Muslim world is too many of them hate other Muslims, never mind us.
The sins of Gaddafi, and Hussein were carried out against their own people. Yet we were guilty of supporting these regimes when it suited us. Ive heard it said we should just pull out and let them get on with it, but then the same people complaining about Trumps actions, would complain about his inaction if they started brutalising their neighbours, and we just stood by and did nothing.
I don't pretend to have the answer, its too complicated and the 'facts' are very fudged, I only know I dont want to judge it until all is clear.
-
- Posts: 9471
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1184 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: War with Iran?
I certainly would Jakub
-
- Posts: 30696
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11049 times
- Has Liked: 5658 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: War with Iran?
Al Asad Air Force Base near Baghdad has been attacked by Iran by the looks of it - hopefully no casualties but if there are then I suspect it will be full blown war
-
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3080 times
- Has Liked: 5049 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: War with Iran?
It would be one of the shortest wars in history, but the consequences of it would be lingering in decades.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 amAl Asad Air Force Base near Baghdad has been attacked by Iran by the looks of it - hopefully no casualties but if there are then I suspect it will be full blown war
Hopefully no casualties, and it might assuage Iranian pride that they struck back.
Re: War with Iran?
This is a little black and white, no?Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:45 amWhat are the facts?
The only thing definite is the USA took this guy out.
Half the world looked on him as a hero, the other half as a terrorist. He does appear to have been instrumental in propping up Assad in Syria, who is a despot.
The problem with the Muslim world is too many of them hate other Muslims, never mind us.
The sins of Gaddafi, and Hussein were carried out against their own people. Yet we were guilty of supporting these regimes when it suited us. Ive heard it said we should just pull out and let them get on with it, but then the same people complaining about Trumps actions, would complain about his inaction if they started brutalising their neighbours, and we just stood by and did nothing.
I don't pretend to have the answer, its too complicated and the 'facts' are very fudged, I only know I dont want to judge it until all is clear.
-
- Posts: 30696
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11049 times
- Has Liked: 5658 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: War with Iran?
what makes you think it will be a short war ? I think it will be far from thatColburn_Claret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:09 amIt would be one of the shortest wars in history, but the consequences of it would be lingering in decades.
Hopefully no casualties, and it might assuage Iranian pride that they struck back.
-
- Posts: 9471
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1184 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: War with Iran?
It would, boots would need to be on the ground playing that out a style of guerilla warfare & they'd be other foreign fighters willing to assist, then the threat of suicide bombs going off in shopping malls, airports ect. It'd be a right can of worms.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:50 amwhat makes you think it will be a short war ? I think it will be far from that
-
- Posts: 30696
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11049 times
- Has Liked: 5658 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: War with Iran?
if it ends up in war, which I don't think it will, it will be fought from the air, ships and via cyber methods - zero chance of US troops entering IranJakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:09 amIt would, boots would need to be on the ground playing that out a style of guerilla warfare & they'd be other foreign fighters willing to assist, then the threat of suicide bombs going off in shopping malls, airports ect. It'd be a right can of worms.
-
- Posts: 9471
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1184 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: War with Iran?
I'm afraid they could have to, I read a article the other day from a respected former Mod professional who was saying they'd have to be a land invasion of some description, that's part of the reason I've formulated this opinion, I'll try to find the same article & post.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:26 amif it ends up in war, which I don't think it will, it will be fought from the air, ships and via cyber methods - zero chance of US troops entering Iran
-
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Re: War with Iran?
I took the entire Iranian regime out in little under 3 hours on Call of Duty last night.
-
- Posts: 3659
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1402 times
- Has Liked: 2692 times
- Location: varied
Re: War with Iran?
Can we talk about football please.
I don't want to die.
I don't want to die.
Re: War with Iran?
I'm sure Trump last year said something about completing games quick like "there's no better speedrunner than me, believe me, i get all the high scores" or something like that. Could've been on about his amphetamines though, not sure.Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:55 amI took the entire Iranian regime out in little under 3 hours on Call of Duty last night.
-
- Posts: 10326
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3340 times
- Has Liked: 1960 times
Re: War with Iran?
This plane crash in Iran seems a bit of a coincidence.
-
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:35 pm
- Been Liked: 345 times
- Has Liked: 1571 times
- Location: Wantage
Re: War with Iran?
Meanwhile, here’s the latest weather forecast in Iran
- Attachments
-
- 6CF4D80D-3649-4396-BCB2-1C79C1599172.jpeg (56.94 KiB) Viewed 1867 times
Re: War with Iran?
Holtyclaret - if it wasn't such a possibility that would be really funny, I just hope that the masters of trump have his leash tightly held
Re: War with Iran?
Wow, don't go confusing people with the truth. Facts, that's a refreshing change on this board.
-
- Posts: 7063
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2173 times
- Has Liked: 3108 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: War with Iran?
Was reading something about people complaining about overnight flights from Abu Dhabi and the like being delayed or cancelled.Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:41 amThis plane crash in Iran seems a bit of a coincidence.
You would think people might put 2 and 2 together and understand why that airspace may not be the place to be overnight
-
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1029 times
- Has Liked: 1521 times
Re: War with Iran?
It was declared by Iranian authorities to be engine failure within about 5 minutes of it happening.
Both engines? At once. With no trace of the aircraft losing speed or falling, just VANISHING at 8,000 feet. On that night of all nights?
I don't believe them.
Both engines? At once. With no trace of the aircraft losing speed or falling, just VANISHING at 8,000 feet. On that night of all nights?
I don't believe them.
Re: War with Iran?
It's hard to see how the assassination of Suleimani was a positive action by the US. The question that arises is 'Will this killing bring any benefits to the world?' or 'How will this improve a problematic situation?' As far as I can see it will just make things a lot worse. It's an act of utter stupidity, which is somewhat in line with Donald Trump's form of government, ie actions taken and words spoken with no real understanding of the consequences.
It's also quite shocking to notice the way in which dishonest words are presented as proven facts. From the Americans we have statements that this man was responsible for innumerable terrorist attacks. Well, which attacks were they? Where were they and who was killed in them? I haven't seen any explanations along those lines.
Then it is said that he was in Iraq to make plans to kill Americans. How do they know that? Is it certain? We will recall the lies that were told by both the Americans and British to justify the invasion of Iraq, so one is naturally sceptical about what is being said in this regard. And Trump has said that this killing will save thousands of American and European lives. How on earth can this be true?
Perhaps I am out of date, but I do find the manner in which obvious falsehoods are put out to the public quite shocking. Maybe what is more remarkable is that there are still many people who will credence to these statements, which on the surface appear to be simply ridiculous.
It's also quite shocking to notice the way in which dishonest words are presented as proven facts. From the Americans we have statements that this man was responsible for innumerable terrorist attacks. Well, which attacks were they? Where were they and who was killed in them? I haven't seen any explanations along those lines.
Then it is said that he was in Iraq to make plans to kill Americans. How do they know that? Is it certain? We will recall the lies that were told by both the Americans and British to justify the invasion of Iraq, so one is naturally sceptical about what is being said in this regard. And Trump has said that this killing will save thousands of American and European lives. How on earth can this be true?
Perhaps I am out of date, but I do find the manner in which obvious falsehoods are put out to the public quite shocking. Maybe what is more remarkable is that there are still many people who will credence to these statements, which on the surface appear to be simply ridiculous.
-
- Posts: 6519
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
- Been Liked: 980 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: War with Iran?
This "tit for tat" missiles strike on a coalition airbase, that resulted in no casualties and where several of the ballistic missiles apparently failed to even detonate, has all the hallmarks of a staged attack allowing Iran to save face with it's populace and avoid an all out conflict.
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2625 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: War with Iran?
Me neither, almost certainly shot down. More than likely an accident, with the majority of fatalities being Iranian.tarkys_ears wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:59 amIt was declared by Iranian authorities to be engine failure within about 5 minutes of it happening.
Both engines? At once. With no trace of the aircraft losing speed or falling, just VANISHING at 8,000 feet. On that night of all nights?
I don't believe them.
Similar to the plane shot down in Ukraine. Makes you think that firing missiles around the sky might be a bit dangerous.