Trump and neocons started War with Iran in order to win elections?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No, gays aren't being lynched like blacks were being lynched,

Even that was rare compared to how much attention it still gets. Something like a few dozen

Wrong by a factor of about 166.

over a few decades a century ago.

Not quite.

Drop in the ocean in a country the size of US.

Funny, I can think of someone else that should be dropped in an ocean right now, just to see how despicable a comment like that truly is.

 

[Derec]

The latest from the Saudis is that Soleimani was on his way to work with them on a detante in Iraq. Whether this is to distance themselves from a conflict or actually true remains to be seen, but it's difficult to image how much political capital simply went up in smoke for something that provides no strategic benefit.

I have not heard anything about Saudis saying that. So far I have only heard the pro-Iran acting PM of Iraq claim that. Do you have a link where Saudis are saying that?

 

[Derec]

Wrong by a factor of about 166.

I stand corrected. Still, vast majority of the cases is from a long, long time ago. How is that relevant to the apologetics for the Iranian regime that the Left is so eager to do?

Not quite.

Clear outlier though.

Funny, I can think of someone else that should be dropped in an ocean right now, just to see how despicable a comment like that truly is.

Blacks are twice as likely to murder a white person than the other way around. So why is the latter always mentioned as some sort of moral failing of US but the former is not given much attention?

 

[Deepak]

So you anticipate the Quds Force is going to attack the US? Will it be drone bombing of US cities with no boots on the ground? Will they land troops in the US?

Dude: wake up. Are you not petrified of the intercontinental scuds hitting the US?!!

Oh I know, it keeps me shaking in my boots. Any day now Iran will launch a Normandy-style invasion in Virginia and march to Washington. Then we'll all be placed under Shia rule.

Surely, in your years of studying military strategy you studied up on the Millennium Challenge in 2002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

No one is expecting the outcome of this to be a beachhead invasion of the mainland. That reminds me, weren't you the guy who was really concerned about getting involved in endless conflict in the Middle East? Why so cavalier about fallout from this assassination?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Absolutely, because Obama wasn't a traitorous piece of shit who just killed a foreign general--

Soleimani was not just some "foreign general".

I didn't say he was. Read it again.

thereby risking the lives of millions of completely innocent people both here and abroad--for his own personal gain, then lied about it and instructed his psychophants to do likewise, so there would be absolutely no justifiable reason to make such a call.

Millions of people is quite an exaggeration.

Not in the slightest. Not even counting possible US causalities, the "war" in Iraq, for a ready example, has so far caused well over two to three million completely innocent men, women and children to be killed, maimed or otherwise displaced as a result and we're still counting.

In 2003, their population was only 23 million. Iran has a population of 81 million.

Also, what is a "psychophant"?

A play on words.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Clear outlier though.

I was just starting High School when it happened, so, no. Not really.

Blacks are twice as likely to murder a white person

Jesus, not that fucking canard again:

Statistical data collected by the FBI in 2016 reported that 90.1 percent of black homicide victims were killed by black perpetrators. Similarly, 83.5 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites, a figure comparable to that for black victims. And yet the term “white-on-white crime” does not exist in American lexicon. According to Columbia University professor Carla Shedd, “All violence and crime is about proximity” to the point that the label “‘black-on-black crime’ is an unnecessary specification.” Furthermore, the extent to which black individuals are committing crime has been vastly exaggerated in the public imagination. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics maintains that less than one percent of all black Americans commit a violent crime in any given year, which, stated differently, means that 99 percent of black Americans do not commit crimes to contribute to the black-on-black crime categorization.

You just can't help but flaunt your ignorance:

Overall murder rates have been declining since 1980, when the total rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter was 10.2 per 100,000 people. But the disproportionately high rate at which Black Americans are murdered should still concern lawmakers, reporters, and the public.

Unfortunately, conversations about this problem often fall back on the assumption that violence in Black communities has cultural — or even biological — roots. But these assumptions aren’t supported by data.

For instance, Krivo and Peterson’s analysis of crime data in Columbus, Ohio shows that economic disadvantage, not race, is the strongest predictor of violence in a particular neighborhood. “In fact,” they conclude, “violent crime rates for extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods are more similar to rates for extremely disadvantaged black areas than to rates for other types of white neighborhoods.”

Studies like these suggest that racial disparities in murder rates stem from a variety of structural causes, most notably economic inequality. (To dig deeper, see Krivo and Peterson’s study controlling for neighborhood disadvantage, as well as the Violence Policy Center’s recent study of Black homicide victimization.)

 

[Derec]

Not in the slightest. Not even counting possible US causalities, the "war" in Iraq, for a ready example, has so far caused well over two to three million completely innocent men, women and children to be killed, maimed or otherwise displaced as a result and we're still counting.

That page shows a very wide range of estimates and I do not any 2-3 million estimate. And many of those deaths have nothing to do with US anyway, but are due to Sunni-Shiite sectarian hostilities.

In 2003, their population was only 23 million. Iran has a population of 81 million.

Land war in Iran would be a major mistake. Any war with Iran would probably involve aerial attacks, hopefully only on military targets, and hopefully destroying their nuclear capabilities. It will also involve Iranian retaliation in the region. But do not expect US trying to put boots on the ground in Tehran. Not gonna happen.

A play on words.

I was wondering if it was that or a typo. After all, the 'p' is silent in "psycho".

 

[Derec]

I was just starting High School when it happened, so, no. Not really.

It being an outlier has nothing to do with you entering high school. Talk about a non sequitur!

Jesus, not that fucking canard again:

Salon is a rag and Eboby Slaughter is a racial radical.

Statistical data collected by the FBI in 2016 reported that 90.1 percent of black homicide victims were killed by black perpetrators. Similarly, 83.5 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites, a figure comparable to that for black victims.

Lying by omission. Yes, most homicides are intraracial. Nobody disputes that. But black homicide rate is about 5 times higher than white homicide rate, which also means many more black victims. So black-on-black violence is not a myth.
And when it comes to interracial homicides, there are twice as many black-on-white homicides than vice versa, according to FBI data. And yet activists and many politicians and media figures pretend that it's the opposite.

And yet the term “white-on-white crime” does not exist in American lexicon.

Because it is far less prevalent.

According to Columbia University professor Carla Shedd, “All violence and crime is about proximity” to the point that the label “‘black-on-black crime’ is an unnecessary specification.” Furthermore, the extent to which black individuals are committing crime has been vastly exaggerated in the public imagination. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics maintains that less than one percent of all black Americans commit a violent crime in any given year, which, stated differently, means that 99 percent of black Americans do not commit crimes to contribute to the black-on-black crime categorization.

That latter point is actually a good one. Most people are not violent criminals.
That does not challenge the point I was making though.

Overall murder rates have been declining since 1980, when the total rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter was 10.2 per 100,000 people. But the disproportionately high rate at which Black Americans are murdered should still concern lawmakers, reporters, and the public.

And they are murdered mostly by other black people. And yet, the most attention is given to the rare cases where a black person is killed by somebody white (or off-white like Z).

Unfortunately, conversations about this problem often fall back on the assumption that violence in Black communities has cultural — or even biological — roots. But these assumptions aren’t supported by data.

I think culture definitely plays a role. Specifically hip hop culture glorifies violent crime.

Studies like these suggest that racial disparities in murder rates stem from a variety of structural causes, most notably economic inequality. (To dig deeper, see Krivo and Peterson’s study controlling for neighborhood disadvantage, as well as the Violence Policy Center’s recent study of Black homicide victimization.)

Sociology in general has a big problem with methodology and confirmation bias. Specifically these two founded the "Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network" so they don't seem to me to be disinterested researchers. More like advocates who want to push a particular political position.

 

[repoman]

Yea, I'm sorry to say that I stopped trying to understand repoman's posts a long time ago!

Something about da joos being bad.

Interesting link to the twitter account of Lee Fang from The Intercept about Richard Goldberg on Trump's national security staff while paid by pro Israel think tank FDD. Dual loyalty is so damaging to America and Russia is not the place that loyalty lies.

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1213532117214171136

Can I get an apology?

 

[repoman]

It being an outlier has nothing to do with you entering high school. Talk about a non sequitur!



Salon is a rag and Eboby Slaughter is a racial radical.

Statistical data collected by the FBI in 2016 reported that 90.1 percent of black homicide victims were killed by black perpetrators. Similarly, 83.5 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites, a figure comparable to that for black victims.

Lying by omission. Yes, most homicides are intraracial. Nobody disputes that. But black homicide rate is about 5 times higher than white homicide rate, which also means many more black victims. So black-on-black violence is not a myth.
And when it comes to interracial homicides, there are twice as many black-on-white homicides than vice versa, according to FBI data. And yet activists and many politicians and media figures pretend that it's the opposite.

And yet the term “white-on-white crime” does not exist in American lexicon.

Because it is far less prevalent.
View attachment 25539

According to Columbia University professor Carla Shedd, “All violence and crime is about proximity” to the point that the label “‘black-on-black crime’ is an unnecessary specification.” Furthermore, the extent to which black individuals are committing crime has been vastly exaggerated in the public imagination. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics maintains that less than one percent of all black Americans commit a violent crime in any given year, which, stated differently, means that 99 percent of black Americans do not commit crimes to contribute to the black-on-black crime categorization.

That latter point is actually a good one. Most people are not violent criminals.
That does not challenge the point I was making though.

Overall murder rates have been declining since 1980, when the total rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter was 10.2 per 100,000 people. But the disproportionately high rate at which Black Americans are murdered should still concern lawmakers, reporters, and the public.

And they are murdered mostly by other black people. And yet, the most attention is given to the rare cases where a black person is killed by somebody white (or off-white like Z).

Unfortunately, conversations about this problem often fall back on the assumption that violence in Black communities has cultural — or even biological — roots. But these assumptions aren’t supported by data.

I think culture definitely plays a role. Specifically hip hop culture glorifies violent crime.

Studies like these suggest that racial disparities in murder rates stem from a variety of structural causes, most notably economic inequality. (To dig deeper, see Krivo and Peterson’s study controlling for neighborhood disadvantage, as well as the Violence Policy Center’s recent study of Black homicide victimization.)

Sociology in general has a big problem with methodology and confirmation bias. Specifically these two founded the "Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network" so they don't seem to me to be disinterested researchers. More like advocates who want to push a particular political position.

Can someone split this off of this thread, this is not on topic at all.

 

[repoman]

Woah, is the US State Department a branch of FDD?

 

[jonatha]

Maybe we should start a poll....

(Dibs on "Iran blows up a Trump-labelled property in some non-US nation")

Called it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-chilling-hint-attacks-Trump-properties.html

 

[Patooka]

Well, this is reassuring:

Asked about fears that Iran might retaliate, the president told reporters: "If it happens, it happens."

There is nothing more comforting than a demented fuckwit with nuclear codes declaring, "I'm just making this up as I go along."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It'll actually be harmless. Iranian assets will be contacting dozens of Trump related hotels and booking rooms with plans to cancel at the last second leaving the hotels empty for months.

 

[barbos]

It'll actually be harmless. Iranian assets will be contacting dozens of Trump related hotels and booking rooms with plans to cancel at the last second leaving the hotels empty for months.

You can do that? Why Hillary is not doing that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It'll actually be harmless. Iranian assets will be contacting dozens of Trump related hotels and booking rooms with plans to cancel at the last second leaving the hotels empty for months.

Make that 24 hours before the last second.
That way they get their registration fee back.
THEN they can make headlines about Trump giving the Iranians $X,000 dollars so they won't blow up his resorts.

They just won't stress that he's giving them BACK their own money. Just like Obama did.

 

[Elixir]

You can do that?

Of course. Try it yourself. You can't do that in Russia?

Why Hillary is not doing that?

Obviously because Bin Gozzy. She's in league with Orange Judas.

 

[funinspace]

Funny the back and forth of extremes...

Jason: Both parties are just as bad.

Where did I post that? I would like a citation.

You post like the below quite often without ever seeming acknowledging, that at least the Dums aren't quite as reckless and wanton in their international domination games as the Repugs. If you actually don't think that both parties are 'just as bad' at war mongering, just say so... I had certainly criticized the Obama Administration often for its continued and expanded use of drone attacks, as it legitimized what the Shrub did and has enabled the current clown to do his dirty deeds w/o much limitations.

Hey, remember when Obama was President, and we weren't the bad guys?

Democrat drones kill people in a happy way. Republican drones are mean when they kill people.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You failed to support your claim.

 

[funinspace]

That's the problem with extremes.



Exactly. False equivalence.

Others: The Dems do it strategically.

Which is true.

Libya was strategic

Yes.

and/or necessary?

I said "strategically necessary" not "strategic and/or necessary." It's not a binary, so it can't be separated.

So, let's go to your source and look at it in regard to strategically necessary as opposed to self-serving, which was my metric:

A strike on an Islamic State training camp in western Libya in February killed more than 40 people

That would appear to have been a strategically necessary mission and not a self serving one, but if you have additional evidence--as we do in regard to Trump's recent actions--that would argue Obama ordered that strike for self serving reasons, by all means present it.

a drone strike in Somalia against al-Shabab on March 5 killed 150 people. Another drone strike, in Yemen in February, killed dozens.

Absent additional information, it's difficult to assess whether or not those were strategically necessary or self serving, but, again, in light of the President who ordered them, I would go with strategically necessary. Do you have any evidence that these attacks were in any way self serving?

The U.S. came under heavy criticism for a drone strike several years ago against extremists in Yemen, which critics said actually hit a wedding party and killed women and children.

Which would fall under a strategically necessary TARGET--i.e., "extremists in Yemen"--that evidently got fucked up in the execution. That doesn't change the fact that the target may (or may not) have been strategically necessary to attack as opposed to attacking it for self serving purposes.

In October, an AC-130 gunship mistakenly hit a hospital in Afghanistan that was run by the charity organization Doctors Without Borders.

You've already noted the "mistakenly" part, so no need to go further.

Personally, I don't think that the Dums/Obama are quite so white knightish, in their military domination games as you seem to suggest. Yeah, Obama admitted they fucked up, which is much better than FFvC. I didn't claim any of the attacks were 'self-serving'. I would argue that many of the drone attacks are/were foolish, counter productive, and/or a waste of money; vice strategic and/or necessary.

I'm not sure how you think Libya, was anything other than a total fuck up, but as this is not the thread, nor do I have the time, I'll just say I disagree. The other issue is that the drone wars are inherently risky to the places we have attacked, as the weapons are much hard to use judiciously as opposed to troops on the ground managing an occupation. We seem to have un-learned that flying warplanes over other countries w/o their permission isn't a decent thingy. Also, Pres. Obama expanded the utilization of the drone attacks to other countries we were never at war with (not that we've declared war like in forever), but the US being the 800 lb gorilla lots other places have had to put up with it.