President Donald Trump to address the nation on Iran attacks at 11 a.m. (8. jan 2020)

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: mightmight

The only way to make a bully to back down is to stand up to him

Knowing Russia could have been drawn into any conflict on the side of Iran, Trump was always going to back down.

This is incredible - minutes after you loons stop screaming Trump is going to get us into WWIII!!! you have already done a 180 and are calling him a coward.

Look in the mirror - you are irrational.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.washingtonpost.com...

interesting coincidental timing.........

Wow - Trump can summon earthquakes now?

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: mightmight

The only way to make a bully to back down is to stand up to him

Knowing Russia could have been drawn into any conflict on the side of Iran, Trump was always going to back down.

This is incredible - minutes after you loons stop screaming Trump is going to get us into WWIII!!! you have already done a 180 and are calling him a coward.

Look in the mirror - you are irrational.

I haven't got a clue what your are talking about.

I just provided possible facts.

originally posted by: bastion
Pleasantly surprised he's taken the right decision and is seeking de-escalation. After the stuttering Pentagon official came out with false claim after false claim I was worried it was going to be an announcement of war.

Was pretty confused by the nuclear agreement comments though as the UN and EU have been in renegotiation for a while to ban Iran from executions and add humanitarian improvements central to the agreement.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I usually do ignore propaganda outlets.

Any reason why I shouldn't ?

When direct sources are quoted, then whatever other paragraphs around it could be interpreted as an opinion, however the direct quotes are not an opinion, they are FACTUAL, regardless of the source.

Now serious, I've got better things to do than trying to explain the basics of journalism

I'm an ex-journo. PressTV are State owned Iranian propaganda outlet who are banned from most of the world because the reporting is so bad. The direct quote may or may not be true as they have a long history of making them up.

There's no direct link to the quote, which is basic journalism transparency, so without using credible media outlets to back it up it's impossible to verify and should be treated with healthy skepticism. It's also basic journalism to second or tripple source such things. As it uses generic 'millitary said' instead of naming the source it needs at least three independent verifications to back it up to meet press standards.

Seriously, no news outlet creates direct quotes, you are correct in that no source is named however if it was made up I'm sure it would be questioned.

Search CNN or Reuters and the sentiment is generally the same, those in the Iraqi government are far from impressed with the actions of Trump, and it was a pretty cowardly act

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.washingtonpost.com...

interesting coincidental timing.........

Wow - Trump can summon earthquakes now?

I think that comes under " Donald Trump Could Be The Modern Day Moses " thread.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Arnie123

I'm not buying that at all, you said that Trump was a danger to the international community and that his actions will lead to war and death, you've been proven wrong.

All of that stands true , this execution and climb down has done nothing to change that.

Now, you're backtracking to the possibility of back channels? Now you're sounding like a regular, Mr. Conspiratorial Gortex

If you don't think there are back channels at times like this then you're naive.

The results of this whole event was a real world test on Trumps resolve, he passed overwhelmingly, it has proven your OPINION wrong.

A leftist, wrong? Impossible! They're the educated ones. They never get things wrong.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl
I don't think so.
It is why I think it is interesting coincidental timing.....
Especially with his opening statement.....

"As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,"

strong words imo

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: mightmight

The only way to make a bully to back down is to stand up to him

Knowing Russia could have been drawn into any conflict on the side of Iran, Trump was always going to back down.

Yeah just like if we attacked Syria Russia would get involved. We attacked Syria, twice. Russia did precisely nothing. They didn't even condemn us killing Iran's general. Russia was never going to get involved in a conflict between us and Iran. Iran knows that. Iran backed down. They purposefully launched missiles into the sand as a "response" to us killing their top General.

a reply to: Arnie123

Accept the JCPOA and let Iran be. Why not? After all, Trump was elected based on the "stop the war in ME" speech.

a reply to: proximo

US tried a revolution in Iran, it didn't worked. Iranian People wants death to america, US sanctions are only going to make them angrier and a trump speech about peace in the middle east isnt going to change their mind

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: mightmight

The only way to make a bully to back down is to stand up to him

Knowing Russia could have been drawn into any conflict on the side of Iran, Trump was always going to back down.

This is incredible - minutes after you loons stop screaming Trump is going to get us into WWIII!!! you have already done a 180 and are calling him a coward.

Look in the mirror - you are irrational.

I haven't got a clue what your are talking about.

I just provided possible facts.

Are those like alternative facts?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: mightmight

The only way to make a bully to back down is to stand up to him

Knowing Russia could have been drawn into any conflict on the side of Iran, Trump was always going to back down.

Yeah just like if we attacked Syria Russia would get involved. We attacked Syria, twice. Russia did precisely nothing. They didn't even condemn us killing Iran's general. Russia was never going to get involved in a conflict between us and Iran. Iran knows that. Iran backed down. They purposefully launched missiles into the sand as a "response" to us killing their top General.

I take others opinions over yours.

Russia Unlikely to Stay Neutral if U.S. and Iran Go to War

www.themoscowtimes.com...

Russia on Friday strongly condemned the U.S. for the killing of top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who perished Thursday in a drone strike authorized by the Trump administration

www.nationalreview.com...

Current affairs is not your strong point. Is it ?

a reply to: vonclod

I disagree, although I didn't catch the whole speech, I did not hear anything that stuck out as you describe..believe me I'm not a fan.

Credit to him for not escalating this.

Credit to you for that honest appraisal. Good show.

TheRedneck

Was looking through the thread for the speech. Didn't notice it posted so here it is.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Seriously, no news outlet creates direct quotes, you are correct in that no source is named however if it was made up I'm sure it would be questioned.

Does that include the North Korean media?

Seriously, dude, people do lie. Journalists can lie about what was said, and the quoted source could be lying about the subject matter. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt until proof is obtained, even the proof.

Anything less is just plain, wanton ignorant. We deny ignorance here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

what I'm saying is that the operator didn't know this fact and probably saw the rocket attack on radar and probably thought a response would be coming so he panicked when a plane suddenly was spotted when planes should've been grounded. the entire chain of command isn't informed about every detail so why would he know anything?

personally i think it was a freak accidental bird strike in the engine or something, andi don't see what cost has to do with our actions militarily, we had an opportunity and took it, probably were multiple people loyal to him and iran needed them dead too so we struck multiple people.

probably went like this, we plan on leaving the region for good so give us this one genera and others working with him, ok we accept because these people are a thorn in our side and causing problems for us too, we'll make him a marytr and make a big show about it, alright we'll play along and also make a show about it and when it's all over we'll leave the region for good, you claim victory and we say nothing to refute it, ending our whole conflict that truman started when he was elected in 1949.

thus after this i bet you'll start seeing our military leave our various bases around iran and by the end of the year we'll be completely gone entirely from the region. not just iraq but every nation we have military positioned around iran, even saudi arabia since we no longer have a need for their oil. i don't think this is as simple as it looks on the surface and certainly more complex than my example.

a reply to: kloejen

How many American servicemen did Trump just say Soleimani killed, now?

Why do the numbers keep changing?

a reply to: proximo

no hes saying the US and Trump would be on the offensive right now if there wasn't someone their own size in the way....

we don't bomb Russia and China despite Crimea, south China Sea etc.

the moral of the story is that the US backs down unless it's a 3rd world country in the ME or Africa
...... statistically that is.. unless I'm mistaking

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: bastion
Pleasantly surprised he's taken the right decision and is seeking de-escalation. After the stuttering Pentagon official came out with false claim after false claim I was worried it was going to be an announcement of war.

Was pretty confused by the nuclear agreement comments though as the UN and EU have been in renegotiation for a while to ban Iran from executions and add humanitarian improvements central to the agreement.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I usually do ignore propaganda outlets.

Any reason why I shouldn't ?

When direct sources are quoted, then whatever other paragraphs around it could be interpreted as an opinion, however the direct quotes are not an opinion, they are FACTUAL, regardless of the source.

Now serious, I've got better things to do than trying to explain the basics of journalism

I'm an ex-journo. PressTV are State owned Iranian propaganda outlet who are banned from most of the world because the reporting is so bad. The direct quote may or may not be true as they have a long history of making them up.

There's no direct link to the quote, which is basic journalism transparency, so without using credible media outlets to back it up it's impossible to verify and should be treated with healthy skepticism. It's also basic journalism to second or tripple source such things. As it uses generic 'millitary said' instead of naming the source it needs at least three independent verifications to back it up to meet press standards.

Seriously, no news outlet creates direct quotes, you are correct in that no source is named however if it was made up I'm sure it would be questioned.

Search CNN or Reuters and the sentiment is generally the same, those in the Iraqi government are far from impressed with the actions of Trump, and it was a pretty cowardly act

You can just man up tell us you didn't know that presstv was an unreliable Iranian state ran media outlet, or you can keep doubling down and make yourself appear more ignorant. Guess you're taking the latter?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Seriously, no news outlet creates direct quotes, you are correct in that no source is named however if it was made up I'm sure it would be questioned.

Does that include the North Korean media?

Seriously, dude, people do lie. Journalists can lie about what was said, and the quoted source could be lying about the subject matter. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt until proof is obtained, even the proof.

Anything less is just plain, wanton ignorant. We deny ignorance here.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: bastion
Pleasantly surprised he's taken the right decision and is seeking de-escalation. After the stuttering Pentagon official came out with false claim after false claim I was worried it was going to be an announcement of war.

Was pretty confused by the nuclear agreement comments though as the UN and EU have been in renegotiation for a while to ban Iran from executions and add humanitarian improvements central to the agreement.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I usually do ignore propaganda outlets.

Any reason why I shouldn't ?

When direct sources are quoted, then whatever other paragraphs around it could be interpreted as an opinion, however the direct quotes are not an opinion, they are FACTUAL, regardless of the source.

Now serious, I've got better things to do than trying to explain the basics of journalism

I'm an ex-journo. PressTV are State owned Iranian propaganda outlet who are banned from most of the world because the reporting is so bad. The direct quote may or may not be true as they have a long history of making them up.

There's no direct link to the quote, which is basic journalism transparency, so without using credible media outlets to back it up it's impossible to verify and should be treated with healthy skepticism. It's also basic journalism to second or tripple source such things. As it uses generic 'millitary said' instead of naming the source it needs at least three independent verifications to back it up to meet press standards.

Seriously, no news outlet creates direct quotes, you are correct in that no source is named however if it was made up I'm sure it would be questioned.

Search CNN or Reuters and the sentiment is generally the same, those in the Iraqi government are far from impressed with the actions of Trump, and it was a pretty cowardly act

You can just man up tell us you didn't know that presstv was an unreliable Iranian state ran media outlet, or you can keep doubling down and make yourself appear more ignorant. Guess you're taking the latter?

Where's the emoji for an eye roll?

I'm sorry, the government of Iraq are just ecstatic about the US troops invasion and current occupation of the country, and they don't mind whatsoever that the US assassinated someone at Baghdad airport, does that make you feel better?

originally posted by: Peserc
a reply to: Arnie123

Accept the JCPOA and let Iran be. Why not? After all, Trump was elected based on the "stop the war in ME" speech.

a reply to: proximo

US tried a revolution in Iran, it didn't worked. Iranian People wants death to america, US sanctions are only going to make them angrier and a trump speech about peace in the middle east isnt going to change their mind

Why have there been a series of mass protests, and 1500 protesters against the regime killed recently if you are correct?

The answer is some people are with the regime and some are against it - and willing to die protesting.

It doesn't work until it does.