Countdown to Midnight: Global Conflagration Imminent

Glen Contrarian · Apr 12, 2018

braindrain said:
For someone who in a post or two earlier complained about someone making assumptions about what a person might do you sure seem to have no problem doing exactly that. So is it just you who can make assumptions or is there a list of people who are allowed.

Is Trump stupid? Yes, bigly.

Is Putin stupid? No. He might be an evil SOB, but he is - to Russia - a patriot and is anything but stupid. He's highly intelligent.

These are not assumptions. When someone is highly intelligent, then you can make certain inferences about what that particular person will or will not do. But when someone is not so intelligent (and/or has serious mental issues such as malignant narcissism), making inferences about what that person will or won't do becomes much more difficult.

braindrain · Apr 12, 2018

Glen Contrarian said:
Is Trump stupid? Yes, bigly.

Is Putin stupid? No. He might be an evil SOB, but he is - to Russia - a patriot and is anything but stupid. He's highly intelligent.

These are not assumptions. When someone is highly intelligent, then you can make certain inferences about what that particular person will or will not do. But when someone is not so intelligent (and/or has serious mental issues such as malignant narcissism), making inferences about what that person will or won't do becomes much more difficult.

So what is Trumps IQ. Let's see the physician that examined Trump and diagnosed him with Malignant narcissism. I am sure you have some proof of your assumptions. What is Putin's.
Maybe you should look up the word assumption and then you would see that yes those are assumptions. Just because you don't know what words mean doesn't change the fact that they are. And what makes them more assumptions then inferences is the fact that you are establishing all your conclusions of off the fact that you hate Trump and are a political hack and not off critical thinking and logic

Tigerace117 · Apr 12, 2018

cuban smokes said:
Me mourn Saddam? LOL, right. I have the same regard for Saddam as I do for Ronny RayGun.

here's a bone

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran – Foreign Policy

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny how the US Government wants to have it's cake & eat it too.

Well, I suppose ole Ronny RayGun & Saddam are pretty good buddies now seeing how they likely both reside in the same place, since they are both guilty of gassing their fellow humans.

So in other words, a "bone" which disproves nothing I said, which actively confirms what I did say(that the US did nothing more than supply Iraq with intel) and which shows that you don't understand basic reading comprehension.

I guess that means you must love Reagan then given how y0u think tossing Saddam(oh, and the Taliban--can't forget them) from power was a "war crime".

Tigerace117 · Apr 13, 2018

beerftw said:
The serbs did ethnically cleanse, but it was grossly exaggerated to make it look like the holocaust when in reality what was going on there was no different than many other countries in the middle east africa and eastern europe, it was basically atrocity propoganda, a means to scare the population into supporting war. Saddam did invade kuwait, however the pretext for swift american intervention was based entirely on a lie, and the woman who pushed the lie admitted she lied just to get an american response. Iraq could not be found with any chemical weapons justifying an invasion, they some old rockets sitting in a warehouse with mustard gas but that is not a viable excuse for war, as mustard gas is so easy to manufacture any redneck can make a trip to walmart and make it.

The argument is not really far fetched, isis and the rebels had been both caught numerous times with chemical weapons, britain was caught selling all the materials to make sarin to the rebels, and russia syria managed to find the only chemical weapons facilities still in syria, inside eastern ghouta wherew western govts were fighting tooth and nail to keep people out. The russians claim they recovered 40 tons of chemical weapons from eastern ghouta alone, which is nearly half as much as assad had during the peak of his chemical weapons program. Mind you russians at this moment are offering full protection of the site to opcw workers from the un to investigate, while the us wants jim investigators who do not investigate the site but rather only use information supplied by rebels and white helmets. Keep in mind the opcw was in the past able to study a suspected site, and ruled the rebels launched the attack, western govts have constantly vetoes using them to investigate and instead pushed the jim which does not investigate the site itself but rather claim and info from rebel groups.

Genocide is genocide, no matter how far you get before someone bombs you into stopping. It's not "propaganda"when the Serbs did, in fact, routinely commit atrocities against innocent civilians on a huge scale.

Saddam did invade Kuwait, and his soldiers did commit huge numbers of war crimes before being thrown out. Again, not "propaganda" when the force in question is actually actively and deliberately going after civilians.

Iraq did have chemical weapons---we know that because they repeatedly used them on their own people and foreign opponents. We also know that the Iraqi Air Force admitted to moving the chemical weapons into Syria in exchange for the Syrians running the ratlines into Iraq.

Except no, that argument does not hold water. If ISIS or Al Qaeda actually owned chemical weapons they would not have used them in Syria---that is a nonsensical idea which completely goes against everything we know about those groups. Instead, if they'd actually owned such weapons, they would have utilized them in an attack on a major European city in an effort to kill as many "infidels" as possible. To be blunt, there is no strategic value in ISIS gassing some Syrian town---the only one with motive is Assad, who wants revenge for people daring to resist him.

The Russians are not a credible source. They have been lying non stop for decades, the KGB, in which Putin spent his career, perfected the art of the mass scale lie, and they are more than willing to cover for Assad. The Russians could care less about gassed civilians.

PoS · Apr 13, 2018

M5S said:
This is absolute madness.

THIS IS SPARTA!

Oozlefinch · Apr 13, 2018

M5S said:
View attachment 67231464

US Naval presence increasing in area, British air force mobilized at Cyprus airbase, France ready to back attack.

And when exactly have we not had a presence in the area? We have pretty much always had a Carrier Group in the Med as part of our NATO commitment since the end of WWII.

To me, this is no more alarming than "there are British Soldiers in Germany". Well yea, no duh. They have been there for over 70 years now.

In fact, the most interesting thing is that the last 8 months have been the only time in the last 17 years that there has not been a Carrier in the Med. And that is only because the Truman had to return to port for refit and repair after 8 months of operations against ISIS. And now the refit is done, she is back on station.

What next, we have to start to worry about WWIII because there are Russian subs in the Atlantic? Well no duh, there are always Russian subs in the Atlantic.

Glen Contrarian · Apr 13, 2018

braindrain said:
So what is Trumps IQ. Let's see the physician that examined Trump and diagnosed him with Malignant narcissism. I am sure you have some proof of your assumptions. What is Putin's.
Maybe you should look up the word assumption and then you would see that yes those are assumptions. Just because you don't know what words mean doesn't change the fact that they are. And what makes them more assumptions then inferences is the fact that you are establishing all your conclusions of off the fact that you hate Trump and are a political hack and not off critical thinking and logic

I can understand your point - I really do. Like you, I normally call BS on others who appear to make rank assumptions. But I really don't think my assertions about Trump and Putin are nearly as assumptive as you believe.

Have you ever worked alongside someone who was a narcissist in the clinical sense? I have - he worked directly for me for close to two years. It's a long story, but I do have a clue.

And of the past 15 presidents, Trump's use of language is - by a significant degree - of the lowest grade level. His is of a fourth-grade level. That, and the more intelligent someone is, generally speaking, the less that person is inclined to brag about his or her intelligence. If a person repeatedly brags about his or her intelligence, chances are that that person is not only less intelligent than claimed, but is quite insecure about the matter.

Putin's intelligence, OTOH, is obvious - he has by his own efforts not only effectively become the new Russian autocrat, but has expanded Russia into Georgia and the Crimea, has interfered and influenced elections in most of the other European nations and in America, has severely weakened the economic and international ties of both NATO and the EU, and has even expanded to have a Russian naval base in Syria where they now hold the upper hand in influence in that nation (such as it is) - whereas before, Russia never to my knowledge had an operational naval base in the Mediterranean, outside the confines of the Black Sea.

Yes, Trump is a malignant narcissist and is stupid (or at least significantly less intelligent than that "very stable genius" would have you believe), and Putin is certainly highly intelligent - we underestimate him at our peril.

Glen Contrarian · Apr 13, 2018

Oozlefinch said:
And when exactly have we not had a presence in the area? We have pretty much always had a Carrier Group in the Med as part of our NATO commitment since the end of WWII.

To me, this is no more alarming than "there are British Soldiers in Germany". Well yea, no duh. They have been there for over 70 years now.

In fact, the most interesting thing is that the last 8 months have been the only time in the last 17 years that there has not been a Carrier in the Med. And that is only because the Truman had to return to port for refit and repair after 8 months of operations against ISIS. And now the refit is done, she is back on station.

What next, we have to start to worry about WWIII because there are Russian subs in the Atlantic? Well no duh, there are always Russian subs in the Atlantic.

I was watching Good Morning America this morning where they had a graphic showing what M5S claimed, and they also showed what appears to be a current filming of a Syrian jet leaving its bunker for a sortie. What got my attention was that it was an F-4 Phantom - the same Vietnam-era jet that I watched launching and trapping on board the USS Ranger back in 1983.

Oozlefinch · Apr 13, 2018

Glen Contrarian said:
I was watching Good Morning America this morning where they had a graphic showing what M5S claimed, and they also showed what appears to be a current filming of a Syrian jet leaving its bunker for a sortie. What got my attention was that it was an F-4 Phantom - the same Vietnam-era jet that I watched launching and trapping on board the USS Ranger back in 1983.

I would have to question the identification, or the source of the video then. It was more than likely a MiG-23 Flogger, which closely resembles the F-4.

The Syrian Air Force uses entirely Soviet-Russian aircraft with only 2 exceptions.

It uses the French Gazelle as an observation helicopter, and a Czech L-39 trainer. All other aircraft are all Russian.

Glen Contrarian · Apr 13, 2018

Oozlefinch said:
I would have to question the identification, or the source of the video then. It was more than likely a MiG-23 Flogger, which closely resembles the F-4.

The Syrian Air Force uses entirely Soviet-Russian aircraft with only 2 exceptions.

It uses the French Gazelle as an observation helicopter, and a Czech L-39 trainer. All other aircraft are all Russian.

It sure looked like a Phantom to me - it had the signature downward-angled horizontal stabilizers in the rear and the strange uneven configuration of the wings and the intakes on either side of the fuselage...

...so I just Googled images of the MIG-23, and you're right. Ya schooled me...again. Thanks!

Oozlefinch · Apr 13, 2018

Glen Contrarian said:
It sure looked like a Phantom to me - it had the signature downward-angled horizontal stabilizers in the rear and the strange uneven configuration of the wings and the intakes on either side of the fuselage...

...so I just Googled images of the MIG-23, and you're right. Ya schooled me...again. Thanks!

There are more differences, specifically wing placement. But on a ground side shot as you describe, the main identification I imagined would have been in the air intake placement, and the tail configuration. And in those areas the 23 and 4 are very similar.

Until the last decade or so, the only countries in that region that usually used US built aircraft was Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. The Saudi's bought the F-15. Iran used the F-4, F-5 and F-14 (all of which were bought during the era of the Shah). Since early on Israel has used various US aircraft, from the P-51 and A-4, to the F-15, F-16 and F-35 today.

The US aircraft still in use in most of the remaining countries in the region are the F-16 and the F-18 (Qatar-Kuwait-UAE-Egypt-Jordan), and mostly acquired in the 1980's or later. During the height of the F-4 era, that region was still buying almost exclusively either Soviet or French equipment. And being controlled by the Ba'ath party for over 50 years, I questioned how they would get US aircraft.

braindrain · Apr 13, 2018

Glen Contrarian said:
I can understand your point - I really do. Like you, I normally call BS on others who appear to make rank assumptions. But I really don't think my assertions about Trump and Putin are nearly as assumptive as you believe.

Have you ever worked alongside someone who was a narcissist in the clinical sense? I have - he worked directly for me for close to two years. It's a long story, but I do have a clue.

And of the past 15 presidents, Trump's use of language is - by a significant degree - of the lowest grade level. His is of a fourth-grade level. That, and the more intelligent someone is, generally speaking, the less that person is inclined to brag about his or her intelligence. If a person repeatedly brags about his or her intelligence, chances are that that person is not only less intelligent than claimed, but is quite insecure about the matter.

Putin's intelligence, OTOH, is obvious - he has by his own efforts not only effectively become the new Russian autocrat, but has expanded Russia into Georgia and the Crimea, has interfered and influenced elections in most of the other European nations and in America, has severely weakened the economic and international ties of both NATO and the EU, and has even expanded to have a Russian naval base in Syria where they now hold the upper hand in influence in that nation (such as it is) - whereas before, Russia never to my knowledge had an operational naval base in the Mediterranean, outside the confines of the Black Sea.

Yes, Trump is a malignant narcissist and is stupid (or at least significantly less intelligent than that "very stable genius" would have you believe), and Putin is certainly highly intelligent - we underestimate him at our peril.

All you needed to say was that no you don't have any proof of your claims and that all you are doing is guessing. Would have saved the both of us some time.

Nothing in any of your posts change the fact that in one part you were complaing about a poster making assumptions and in your very next part you made a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Countdown to Midnight: Global Conflagration Imminent

Minister of Love

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency