Discussion:
Seventy Two Virgins. B Johnson.
Add Reply
Titus G
2020-01-05 06:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If this hadn't been written by the UK's PM, I wouldn't have downloaded
an illegal copy, let alone read it but it was entertaining in a nasty way.
Everyone was a political stereotype and fairly stupid so it was easy to
laugh at them from a superior viewpoint. I was surprised at how
one-sided his characters were in expressing anti-American rhetoric, ("No
one of importance had resigned, in the wake of the [torture] scandal.
None of the crack-brained neocons had really been confronted with the
full awfulness of their doctrines.") and how racist they all were,
mainly based on colour with the Frogs and Jews being examples of
specific lack of diplomacy.
The plot involved many people making errors in understanding or in their
plans to create a ridiculous, but amusing, incident told from many
perspectives. He went out of his way to make a joke and became boorish
with his use of medical terms but has a breezy style:
"Sometimes he would exercise clemency, if he were offered a really
rococo excuse, as a bored tutor will indulge a crapubus undergraduate if
his reason for missing a class is truly bizarre and degenerate."

"There was allegedly a ‘dirty bomb’ threat to London, or so said
‘sources’ in the Home Office, with an eye, no doubt, to stirring up
public alarm, and then introducing some fresh repression of liberty.
There were acres of predictable drivel about the security arrangements
for the celebrations today. The police had launched some Al-Qaeda raid
in Wolverhampton and Finsbury. But then there was one of those every
month. In other words, there was nothing important, and certainly
nothing to feed his ludicrous paranoia."
Quadibloc
2020-01-05 08:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Boris Johnson is a thriller writer?

Will wonders never cease?

John Savard
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-05 09:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Boris Johnson is a thriller writer?
Will wonders never cease?
Well he had a long time writing complete fiction for a paper.
Titus G
2020-01-06 19:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Boris Johnson is a thriller writer?
No. It is racist comedy mainly about towelheads in keeping with Western
media's Islamophobia.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Will wonders never cease?
Well he had a long time writing complete fiction for a paper.
David Johnston
2020-01-07 08:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
If this hadn't been written by the UK's PM, I wouldn't have downloaded
an illegal copy, let alone read it but it was entertaining in a nasty way.
Everyone was a political stereotype and fairly stupid so it was easy to
laugh at them from a superior viewpoint. I was surprised at how
one-sided his characters were in expressing anti-American rhetoric, ("No
one of importance had resigned, in the wake of the [torture] scandal.
None of the crack-brained neocons had really been confronted with the
full awfulness of their doctrines.")
<shrug> Right now the American President is fully in favour of torture
and war crimes.
Paul S Person
2020-01-07 18:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 01:21:10 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Titus G
If this hadn't been written by the UK's PM, I wouldn't have downloaded
an illegal copy, let alone read it but it was entertaining in a nasty way.
Everyone was a political stereotype and fairly stupid so it was easy to
laugh at them from a superior viewpoint. I was surprised at how
one-sided his characters were in expressing anti-American rhetoric, ("No
one of importance had resigned, in the wake of the [torture] scandal.
None of the crack-brained neocons had really been confronted with the
full awfulness of their doctrines.")
<shrug> Right now the American President is fully in favour of torture
and war crimes.
Actually, I'm not sure the /current/ occupant has the mental capacity
to be /fully/ in favor of anything.

The younger Bush, OTOH ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-01-08 05:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I'm not sure the /current/ occupant has the mental capacity
to be /fully/ in favor of anything.
Indeed, that's why I'm not, currently, overly concerned about his offhand remarks
about destroying cultural sites in Iran, as I believe the chances of that are
remote.

As for Soleimani - as he was maintaining Iranian influence by terror and murder,
I feel he was a legitimate target. Of course I'd have more confidence in the
decision to deal with him if it were made by a President I trusted, but that is
not a logical reason for concluding that the decision Trump took was a bad
decision.

But I can understand panic on the basis that he doesn't have the ability to deal
with its consequences.

I also note that North Korea, while it talked of its intent to progress towards
new weapons, has not demonstrated one yet in the immediate vicinity of the New
Year, as has been expected. This could mean that the development program is
considered Trump's lump of coal. I'm wondering if they are being overoptimistic,
and expect the U.S. to self-destruct without their help.

John Savard
David Johnston
2020-01-08 07:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I'm not sure the /current/ occupant has the mental capacity
to be /fully/ in favor of anything.
Indeed, that's why I'm not, currently, overly concerned about his offhand remarks
about destroying cultural sites in Iran, as I believe the chances of that are
remote.
I wasn't talking about cultural sites in Iran. I was talking about
Trump pardoning every soldier found guilty of war crimes. That is real
tangible action.
Robert Carnegie
2020-01-08 10:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I'm not sure the /current/ occupant has the mental capacity
to be /fully/ in favor of anything.
Indeed, that's why I'm not, currently, overly concerned about his offhand remarks
about destroying cultural sites in Iran, as I believe the chances of that are
remote.
I wasn't talking about cultural sites in Iran. I was talking about
Trump pardoning every soldier found guilty of war crimes. That is real
tangible action.
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be
worried.

But when he talks about doing something distasteful
he usually means it. And if he forgets this one,
someone in his establishment or on Twitter will
remind him.
David Johnston
2020-01-09 06:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I'm not sure the /current/ occupant has the mental capacity
to be /fully/ in favor of anything.
Indeed, that's why I'm not, currently, overly concerned about his offhand remarks
about destroying cultural sites in Iran, as I believe the chances of that are
remote.
I wasn't talking about cultural sites in Iran. I was talking about
Trump pardoning every soldier found guilty of war crimes. That is real
tangible action.
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be
worried.
But when he talks about doing something distasteful
he usually means it. And if he forgets this one,
someone in his establishment or on Twitter will
remind him.
Trump routinely reverses himself after making a threat but the pardons
are a done deal.
David DeLaney
2020-01-09 06:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.

Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 12:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Given that General Soleimani was maintaining Iranian influence by terror and
murder, I had thought he was a legitimate target. Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?

And, of course, we all vividly remember how much Iran respects foreign diplomats.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 12:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.

John Savard
Kevrob
2020-01-09 14:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that. The Iraqi PM confirmed it.

[quote]

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."

[/quote] -

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html

This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true. It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil. If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that? Somebody fell down, somewhere.

Kevin R
Magewolf
2020-01-09 18:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that. The Iraqi PM confirmed it.
[quote]
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."
[/quote] -
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true. It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil. If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that? Somebody fell down, somewhere.
Kevin R
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 21:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-09 22:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?
John Savard
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 22:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?

John Savard
p***@hotmail.com
2020-01-09 22:47:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?
Spindizzies?

Peer Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-09 22:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?
John Savard
Not our problem.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-01-09 23:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:51:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?
John Savard
Not our problem.
Israel going down is _everybody_'s problem. They intend to go down
hard and they are nuclear armed.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-09 23:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:51:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?
John Savard
Not our problem.
Israel going down is _everybody_'s problem. They intend to go down
hard and they are nuclear armed.
Yes, Israel reputedly has 330 nuclear weapons. Some meant for planes.
Some meant for land launched ballistic missiles. And some for submarine
launched missiles.

Their neighbors should be concerned and take measures to ensure that
Israel is not provoked.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 18:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:57:48 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:51:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?
John Savard
Not our problem.
Israel going down is _everybody_'s problem. They intend to go down
hard and they are nuclear armed.
Yes, Israel reputedly has 330 nuclear weapons. Some meant for planes.
Some meant for land launched ballistic missiles. And some for submarine
launched missiles.
Their neighbors should be concerned and take measures to ensure that
Israel is not provoked.
Them should, but them can't.

Them too fulla fanatics.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2020-01-10 05:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
How is Israel supposed to leave the Middle East?
Israel got along without the USA at first. It could probably do it again.
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 00:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:09:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?
John Savard
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
Trump said that.

Then he took out Soleimani.

And sent more troops in.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-10 01:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:09:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?
John Savard
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
Trump said that.
Then he took out Soleimani.
And sent more troops in.
2,000 troops is nothing but an opening hand. Call me when he sends in
100,000 troops like when my son went in 2006.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-01-10 05:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:09:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?
John Savard
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
Trump said that.
Then he took out Soleimani.
And sent more troops in.
2,000 troops is nothing but an opening hand. Call me when he sends in
100,000 troops like when my son went in 2006.
The US 'leaving the Middle East' would cede influence to Russia, abandoning our allies, just as Trump has already betrayed and abandoned the Kurds. While that will help your personal bottom line as oil goes up, it would be a great loss for the US, and humanity in general.

We can't simply return to an isolationist policy; the world is to small for that.

Pt
Quadibloc
2020-01-10 15:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
We can't simply return to an isolationist policy; the world is to small for that.
Increased funding for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion program?

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 18:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 21:05:23 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:09:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?
John Savard
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
Trump said that.
Then he took out Soleimani.
And sent more troops in.
2,000 troops is nothing but an opening hand. Call me when he sends in
100,000 troops like when my son went in 2006.
The US 'leaving the Middle East' would cede influence to Russia, abandoning our allies, just as Trump has already betrayed and abandoned the Kurds. While that will help your personal bottom line as oil goes up, it would be a great loss for the US, and humanity in general.
But ... but ... but ...

that's the goal.

Putin demands it. That's why he helped (or tried to help) Trump in
2016.

This is what it is to have a President who is an agent of a foreign
power.
Post by Peter Trei
We can't simply return to an isolationist policy; the world is to small for that.
Pt
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2020-01-10 05:03:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:09:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Magewolf
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Iran's leadership to do that. But for Iraq to
make this up?
John Savard
It is time for us, the USA, to leave the Middle East.
Trump said that.
Then he took out Soleimani.
And sent more troops in.
Trump says a lot of things.
David Johnston
2020-01-09 21:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two
countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that.  The Iraqi PM confirmed it.
[quote]
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."
[/quote] -
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true.  It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil.  If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that?  Somebody fell down,
somewhere.
Kevin R
As loath as I am to go against someone calling Trump incompetent or a
liar(because he is both) in this case I think it is most likely that
Soleimani's diplomatic mission was assigned posthumously.
Why would Iraq do that?
David Johnston
2020-01-09 18:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that. The Iraqi PM confirmed it.
[quote]
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."
[/quote] -
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true. It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil. If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that? Somebody fell down, somewhere.
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
David DeLaney
2020-01-11 23:12:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.

Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Paul S Person
2020-01-12 18:04:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:12:01 -0600, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
I hate to say it, but, given

1. Killing him made no difference; the next-in-command took over
immediately.

2. This appears to have been part of a wider operation.

3. The /last/ time "imminent threat" was cited, we invaded Iraq and
found /no/ WMDs which, given that Trump is simply not credible even
when he happens (like a broken clock) to be right, is not encouraging.

it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iranians have a right to
be p*ssed.

However, their inability to properly train and control their air
defense personnel is their own. Either you have a military
organization -- or you have a mob. There is no in between.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
m***@sky.com
2020-01-12 18:42:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:12:01 -0600, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
I hate to say it, but, given
1. Killing him made no difference; the next-in-command took over
immediately.
2. This appears to have been part of a wider operation.
3. The /last/ time "imminent threat" was cited, we invaded Iraq and
found /no/ WMDs which, given that Trump is simply not credible even
when he happens (like a broken clock) to be right, is not encouraging.
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iranians have a right to
be p*ssed.
However, their inability to properly train and control their air
defense personnel is their own. Either you have a military
organization -- or you have a mob. There is no in between.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
For some time there have been computer science network analysis papers cropping up that claimed applicability to the problem of working out who to eliminate to dismantle a terrorist network most efficiently. It is likely that there are people who are paid to try and work out the right targets to go after. A quick search finds https://www.digitaltonto.com/2013/how-the-nsa-uses-social-network-analysis-to-map-terrorist-networks/ "The result is an almost uncannily accurate picture of the leadership, who can then be targeted to dismantle the network. (It has been estimated that the 9-11 network could have been broken up if just three central nodes had been taken out)."

These sort of attacks on leadership (not necessarily lethal) are one reason why it has been suggested that internet organized revolutions may not have the democratizing force some hoped for. Dictatorships and others may find and remove their Victor Laszlos before they have had time to make their mark properly. I am now slightly disturbed when I hear that some new political movement has self-destructed into chaos. It might be just human arrogance and quarreling, or it might be security services using bribery, forgery, and selective leaking to destroy a threat to the established political order without leaving obvious evidence (such as dead bodies) around.
David DeLaney
2020-01-15 12:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
For some time there have been computer science network analysis papers
cropping up that claimed applicability to the problem of working out who to
eliminate to dismantle a terrorist network most efficiently.
ôIt is a surpassingly difficult problem to correctly select which
subordinate to execute.ö -- Wake, _Safely You Deliver_

Dave, the one about Zora and the unicorn
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Johnston
2020-01-13 01:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:12:01 -0600, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
I hate to say it, but, given
1. Killing him made no difference; the next-in-command took over
immediately.
2. This appears to have been part of a wider operation.
3. The /last/ time "imminent threat" was cited, we invaded Iraq and
found /no/ WMDs which, given that Trump is simply not credible even
when he happens (like a broken clock) to be right, is not encouraging.
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iranians have a right to
be p*ssed.
However, their inability to properly train and control their air
defense personnel is their own. Either you have a military
organization -- or you have a mob. There is no in between.
<shrug> These things happen when things are tense. That's how an
Iranian ended up getting shot down by an American ship 20 years back.
Paul S Person
2020-01-13 17:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:35:31 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:12:01 -0600, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
I hate to say it, but, given
1. Killing him made no difference; the next-in-command took over
immediately.
2. This appears to have been part of a wider operation.
3. The /last/ time "imminent threat" was cited, we invaded Iraq and
found /no/ WMDs which, given that Trump is simply not credible even
when he happens (like a broken clock) to be right, is not encouraging.
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iranians have a right to
be p*ssed.
However, their inability to properly train and control their air
defense personnel is their own. Either you have a military
organization -- or you have a mob. There is no in between.
<shrug> These things happen when things are tense. That's how an
Iranian ended up getting shot down by an American ship 20 years back.
Yes, these things happen.

And disciplinary hearings also happen, if only to make it clear that
"these things" had better not start happening all the time.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2020-01-14 06:13:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:35:31 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:12:01 -0600, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
I hate to say it, but, given
1. Killing him made no difference; the next-in-command took over
immediately.
2. This appears to have been part of a wider operation.
3. The /last/ time "imminent threat" was cited, we invaded Iraq and
found /no/ WMDs which, given that Trump is simply not credible even
when he happens (like a broken clock) to be right, is not encouraging.
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iranians have a right to
be p*ssed.
However, their inability to properly train and control their air
defense personnel is their own. Either you have a military
organization -- or you have a mob. There is no in between.
<shrug> These things happen when things are tense. That's how an
Iranian airliner ended up getting shot down by an American ship 20 years back.
Yes, these things happen.
And disciplinary hearings also happen, if only to make it clear that
"these things" had better not start happening all the time.
You know that made me curious about whether any disciplinary action was
taken was taken against anyone on the Vincennes. That was a nope.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-13 20:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
In this case, I believe Trump. General Salami was in Iraq fomenting
terror against USA citizens. We took him out. Deal with it.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-13 23:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
In this case, I believe Trump. General Salami was in Iraq fomenting
terror against USA citizens. We took him out. Deal with it.
funny that the rest of the administration is saying they had no information when or where any Iranian strikes would be made
According to intelligence agencies the death of the contractor was an accident because he wasn't meant to be there at the time the strike was made

In addition launching a drone strike in Iraq without their permission against the #2 in the Iranian government causes all sorts of problems for diplomatic relations for the US all over the world.
Paul S Person
2020-01-14 17:55:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:17:42 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Or, they knew exactly why he was there and either didn't care, or the
reason why he was there was the reason why they killed him.
In either case, a war crime. QED.
Dave, just when you think Trump can't POSSIBLY get worse
In this case, I believe Trump. General Salami was in Iraq fomenting
terror against USA citizens. We took him out. Deal with it.
Ah ... that would explain Trump's claim that "immanent" is a dirty
Democratic plot to smear him and has no relevance.

Not. (It is, in fact, a /claim/ of immanent threat.)

Gotta move quick to keep up with Trump!

The Party Line changes from tweet to tweet!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-01-14 20:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Ah ... that would explain Trump's claim that "immanent" is a dirty
Democratic plot to smear him and has no relevance.
Not. (It is, in fact, a /claim/ of immanent threat.)
The four embassies thing was a Trump hallucination.

There was certainly reason for dealing with General Soleimani, but that doesn't
excuse Trump for making stuff up.

However, the threat was alleged to be _imminent_ (expected very soon).

It wasn't that the threat surrounded us and was with us everywhere and in
everything, like the Presence of God.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-14 21:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Ah ... that would explain Trump's claim that "immanent" is a dirty
Democratic plot to smear him and has no relevance.
Not. (It is, in fact, a /claim/ of immanent threat.)
The four embassies thing was a Trump hallucination.
There was certainly reason for dealing with General Soleimani, but that doesn't
excuse Trump for making stuff up.
However, the threat was alleged to be _imminent_ (expected very soon).
It wasn't that the threat surrounded us and was with us everywhere and in
everything, like the Presence of God.
John Savard
Are you privy to the information that Trump has ?

Lynn
David Johnston
2020-01-14 22:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Ah ... that would explain Trump's claim that "immanent" is a dirty
Democratic plot to smear him and has no relevance.
Not. (It is, in fact, a /claim/ of immanent threat.)
The four embassies thing was a Trump hallucination.
There was certainly reason for dealing with General Soleimani, but that doesn't
excuse Trump for making stuff up.
However, the threat was alleged to be _imminent_ (expected very soon).
It wasn't that the threat surrounded us and was with us everywhere and in
everything, like the Presence of God.
John Savard
 Are you privy to the information that Trump has ?
Nobody is as familiar as Trump with the stuff he pulls out of his butt.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-14 23:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Ah ... that would explain Trump's claim that "immanent" is a dirty
Democratic plot to smear him and has no relevance.
Not. (It is, in fact, a /claim/ of immanent threat.)
The four embassies thing was a Trump hallucination.
There was certainly reason for dealing with General Soleimani, but that doesn't
excuse Trump for making stuff up.
However, the threat was alleged to be _imminent_ (expected very soon).
It wasn't that the threat surrounded us and was with us everywhere and in
everything, like the Presence of God.
John Savard
Are you privy to the information that Trump has ?
Seeing as nobody else who's been involved in the briefings agrees with Trump about the imminent threat it seems pretty safe to say that Trump doesn't have the information that he's privy to
Paul S Person
2020-01-15 17:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:12:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Ah ... that would explain Trump's claim that "immanent" is a dirty
Democratic plot to smear him and has no relevance.
Not. (It is, in fact, a /claim/ of immanent threat.)
I'm not sure we are all that far apart, BTW.
Post by Quadibloc
The four embassies thing was a Trump hallucination.
There was certainly reason for dealing with General Soleimani, but that doesn't
excuse Trump for making stuff up.
However, the threat was alleged to be _imminent_ (expected very soon).
And then the allegation was said to be proof that the Dems were in
league with the terrorists. So much for the "four embassies" thing,
it's been withdrawn.

As I said, it's hard to keep up the Party Line when Trump changes it
from tweet to tweet.
Post by Quadibloc
It wasn't that the threat surrounded us and was with us everywhere and in
everything, like the Presence of God.
Except in Hell, apparently. Luther, at one point, stated his agreement
with an earlier author that, while the wicked /are/ in flames and /do/
suffer, they do not suffer from the flames, but from the absence of
God.

There /are/ valid reasons for eliminating people like Soleimani:

1. An /actual/ imminent threat /that will be prevented/ by doing so.
2. An effort to /bring the criminal to justice/ that doesn't quite
work as planned (that is, the capture attempt went South).

and one that is not:

revenge

Revenge is a path to terrorism. It should be avoided.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Titus G
2020-01-15 19:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There are just as many, if not more, for eliminating people like Trump,
Biden, Bush, Clinton.
William Hyde
2020-01-15 20:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Revenge is a path to terrorism. It should be avoided.
Fouche said it best: "It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake".

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-15 22:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Paul S Person
Revenge is a path to terrorism. It should be avoided.
Fouche said it best: "It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake".
William Hyde
John Grisham wrote a very good book on this, _The Reckoning_.
https://www.amazon.com/Reckoning-Novel-John-Grisham/dp/0525620931/

Lynn

Paul S Person
2020-01-10 00:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that. The Iraqi PM confirmed it.
[quote]
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."
[/quote] -
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true. It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil. If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that? Somebody fell down, somewhere.
Who says they didn't know that?

Since when has Trump shown any tendency to listen to our intelligence
people?

Intelligence people: Russia interfered in 2016.
Trump & friends: It was the Ukraine.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Titus G
2020-01-10 03:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that. The Iraqi PM confirmed it.
[quote]
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."
[/quote] -
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true. It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil. If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that? Somebody fell down, somewhere.
Who says they didn't know that?
Since when has Trump shown any tendency to listen to our intelligence
people?
It has been reported that Trump's military advisers give him options
designed to steer him toward the choice they think best and that there
are usually ridiculous options at both ends of the spectrum which he has
never chosen. Until very recently. snip
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-10 08:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
It has been reported that Trump's military advisers give him options
designed to steer him toward the choice they think best and that there
are usually ridiculous options at both ends of the spectrum which he has
never chosen. Until very recently. snip
I'd hope nobody involved in briefing Trump was stupid enough to do that, given a choice between something moderate and something that looks exciting he'll always go for the dramatic option.
Titus G
2020-01-10 19:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Titus G
It has been reported that Trump's military advisers give him options
designed to steer him toward the choice they think best and that there
are usually ridiculous options at both ends of the spectrum which he has
never chosen. Until very recently. snip
I'd hope nobody involved in briefing Trump was stupid enough to do that, given a choice between something moderate and something that looks exciting he'll always go for the dramatic option.
I don't know how true it is but I found the article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/trump-suleimani.html
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 18:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Would the United States have
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
Ah, I see I had missed something. He was specifically in Iraq as a representative
of Iran to negotiate a lessening of tensions between the two countries. A reaction
from Iraq is understandable, since otherwise Iraq would appear in default of its
diplomatic obligations.
I had wondered about that. The Iraqi PM confirmed it.
[quote]
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in
the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message
from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the
Saudis to Iran."
[/quote] -
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
This would compare to the North Vietnamese taking out Henry Kissinger
on one of his secret trips to negotiate with Zhou Enlai prior to Nixon
visiting China, if it is true. It could be post facto ass-covering by
a pol embarrassed by a foreign military leader/terrorist operating on
his country's soil. If Soleimani had been acting as a diplomat, how
did our intelligence people not know that? Somebody fell down, somewhere.
Who says they didn't know that?
Since when has Trump shown any tendency to listen to our intelligence
people?
It has been reported that Trump's military advisers give him options
designed to steer him toward the choice they think best and that there
are usually ridiculous options at both ends of the spectrum which he has
never chosen. Until very recently. snip
Ah, yes.

"The management of Kings".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2020-01-09 18:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David DeLaney
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Given that General Soleimani was maintaining Iranian influence by terror and
murder,
Which makes him different from the Americans in the Middle East...how?

I had thought he was a legitimate target. Would the United States have
Post by Quadibloc
even been aware that he had been made an Iranian diplomat at the time of the
attack?
They damn well better have considering their justification for the
killing was that they knew what he was up to.
Post by Quadibloc
And, of course, we all vividly remember how much Iran respects foreign diplomats.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 12:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
It's not as if he was carrying the secret plans for something to do with the
Strategic Defence Initiative...

John Savard
D B Davis
2020-01-10 14:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
killing. Here's some background information about Soleimani:

... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.

... Every single poor Iranian of a martial demeanor saw himself
in the General. That is the kind of adoration which cannot be
bought for any price and which can only be earned by honor.

... He was regarded by intelligence agencies as having tremendous
input and perhaps even a "final say" on which individual would be
chosen Iranian President. It was he who ensured no one too radical
(or insufficiently devout) would be permitted to lead.

... He was soft-spoken and rarely raised his voice in meetings.
Unlike several notables in the Middle East, he declined to allow
admirers to offer a kiss.

... Like Horatio Nelson himself, Qassem Soleimani was not an
affluent man. He did not use his position to enrich himself -
a concept totally incomprehensible to contemporary Western
leaders in any capacity.

... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.

https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qassem-soleimani/



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
D B Davis
2020-01-10 15:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
killing.
Better yet, Trump's "economy" AKA the stock market, takes an
instantaneous hit whenever Trump goes off the deep end. That rascal's
painting himself into a corner.



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 18:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
killing.
Better yet, Trump's "economy" AKA the stock market, takes an
instantaneous hit whenever Trump goes off the deep end. That rascal's
painting himself into a corner.
It /is/ rather predictable, isn't it.

Let's hope the SEC is watching to see if he is profiting from this
effect.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
D B Davis
2020-01-10 22:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by D B Davis
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
killing.
Better yet, Trump's "economy" AKA the stock market, takes an
instantaneous hit whenever Trump goes off the deep end. That rascal's
painting himself into a corner.
It /is/ rather predictable, isn't it.
Let's hope the SEC is watching to see if he is profiting from this
effect.
The SEC is an oligarchy lapdog that does as it's told. What you need is
a whistleblower. Trouble is, those whistle-blowers sometimes get
Epsteined (AKA Arkancided or suicided).

The Repo Loan Crisis, Dead Bankers, and Deutsche Bank: Timeline of Events

... May 19, 2019: The New York Times' David Enrich writes the bombshell
report describing how a Deutsche Bank whistleblower, Tammy
McFadden, and four of her colleagues, had their efforts blocked by the
bank when they tried to file suspicious activity reports on bank
accounts affiliated with Donald Trump and his son-in-law/advisor Jared
Kushner. The suspicious activity reports (SARs) should have been filed
with the Federal agency known as FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network) but were quashed by a unit of the bank that manages money for
the super wealthy. The article appeared in the print edition of the New
York Times on Monday, May 20, 2019. The stock closes that day at $7.43.

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2019/09/the-repo-loan-crisis-dead-bankers-and-deutsche-bank-timeline-of-events/



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-10 17:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.
... Every single poor Iranian of a martial demeanor saw himself
in the General. That is the kind of adoration which cannot be
bought for any price and which can only be earned by honor.
... He was regarded by intelligence agencies as having tremendous
input and perhaps even a "final say" on which individual would be
chosen Iranian President. It was he who ensured no one too radical
(or insufficiently devout) would be permitted to lead.
... He was soft-spoken and rarely raised his voice in meetings.
Unlike several notables in the Middle East, he declined to allow
admirers to offer a kiss.
... Like Horatio Nelson himself, Qassem Soleimani was not an
affluent man. He did not use his position to enrich himself -
a concept totally incomprehensible to contemporary Western
leaders in any capacity.
... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.
https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qassem-soleimani/
That does leave out significant information about his involvement in black ops in the region and, allegedly, an attempted assassinaton of a Saudi diplomat in the USA...
D B Davis
2020-01-10 18:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ..
D B Davis
2020-01-10 18:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.
... Every single poor Iranian of a martial demeanor saw himself
in the General. That is the kind of adoration which cannot be
bought for any price and which can only be earned by honor.
... He was regarded by intelligence agencies as having tremendous
input and perhaps even a "final say" on which individual would be
chosen Iranian President. It was he who ensured no one too radical
(or insufficiently devout) would be permitted to lead.
... He was soft-spoken and rarely raised his voice in meetings.
Unlike several notables in the Middle East, he declined to allow
admirers to offer a kiss.
... Like Horatio Nelson himself, Qassem Soleimani was not an
affluent man. He did not use his position to enrich himself -
a concept totally incomprehensible to contemporary Western
leaders in any capacity.
... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.
https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qassem-soleimani/
That does leave out significant information about his involvement in black ops
Yes, let's go there. Allow me to excerpt my source one more time:

In large measure the reason for this article was the degree to which
lies have been told about Soleimani in the past week.

For one, there was no - absolutely none - involvement by Iran or
specifically Soleimani with the September 11, 2001, attacks on the
United States as falsely claimed by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

For another, Soleimani actually personally assisted the United States
in apprehending individuals associated with Al Qaeda following those
incidents and only ceased cooperation when President George Bush
denounced Iran as an "Axis of Evil."



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Robert Woodward
2020-01-10 18:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.
<SNIP>
Post by D B Davis
... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.
https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qassem-
soleimani/
"General Nikita Khrushchev ... a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors"? Ahem, the author of that piece is either betraying
considerable bias or considerable ignorance. Khrushchev was a non-voting
delegate to the 14th congress of the USSR Communist Party in 1925 (when
he was 31 years old). That was involved in political endeavors by
definition (and that is just one of many party positions he held in the
1920s).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
D B Davis
2020-01-10 21:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.
<SNIP>
Post by D B Davis
... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.
https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qassem
-
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by D B Davis
soleimani/
"General Nikita Khrushchev ... a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors"? Ahem, the author of that piece is either betraying
considerable bias or considerable ignorance. Khrushchev was a non-voting
delegate to the 14th congress of the USSR Communist Party in 1925 (when
he was 31 years old). That was involved in political endeavors by
definition (and that is just one of many party positions he held in the
1920s).
My take on "political endeavors" in this context is when a general stops
killing people and starts governing noncombatants instead. In the case
of the two generals mentioned, this takes place during their post WWII
careers.
Sometimes political endeavors happen during a conflict. For
instance, when Sam Walton and others indoctrinated captured Wehrmacht
generals at Jefferson Barracks Missouri during the war.



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Robert Woodward
2020-01-11 18:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.
<SNIP>
Post by D B Davis
... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.
https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qass
em
-
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by D B Davis
soleimani/
"General Nikita Khrushchev ... a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors"? Ahem, the author of that piece is either betraying
considerable bias or considerable ignorance. Khrushchev was a non-voting
delegate to the 14th congress of the USSR Communist Party in 1925 (when
he was 31 years old). That was involved in political endeavors by
definition (and that is just one of many party positions he held in the
1920s).
My take on "political endeavors" in this context is when a general stops
killing people and starts governing noncombatants instead. In the case
of the two generals mentioned, this takes place during their post WWII
careers.
Khrushchev was a Commissar during WWII - that means he was one of the
Party's watchdogs of the Generals and Marshals of the Army of Workers
and Peasants Red Army. He was not responsible for conducting field
operations.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
D B Davis
2020-01-11 19:27:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by D B Davis
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by D B Davis
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently, hitting "cultural sites" /is/
a war crime. If he knows what any are.
If I worked in Tehran McDonalds I'd be worried.
Note that assaulting, much less killing, someone on a diplomatic mission ...
which the General was at the time ... is ALSO a war crime. So we don't have
to deal in hypotheticals.
Dave, which takes it from SF into 'thriller', if I understand the collective
categories correctly? And not even a 'near-future' one
At least Democrats are making Trump pay a political price for the
... One nickname given to him by his men was "The Goat Thief" since
Soleimani often returned from missions with food for his hungry
soldiers. He was regarded as a fair and determined leader by those
under his command. When orders from above seemed irrational or
ill-advised he challenged them.
<SNIP>
Post by D B Davis
... Let us be extremely clear - The murder of Qassem Soleimani
is far more comparable to a situation in which General Dwight
Eisenhower or General Nikita Khrushchev might have been
slaughtered a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors.
https://original.antiwar.com/Guy_Somerset/2020/01/07/the-many-faces-of-qassem-soleimani/
"General Nikita Khrushchev ... a year or two prior to entering political
endeavors"? Ahem, the author of that piece is either betraying
considerable bias or considerable ignorance. Khrushchev was a non-voting
delegate to the 14th congress of the USSR Communist Party in 1925 (when
he was 31 years old). That was involved in political endeavors by
definition (and that is just one of many party positions he held in the
1920s).
My take on "political endeavors" in this context is when a general stops
killing people and starts governing noncombatants instead. In the case
of the two generals mentioned, this takes place during their post WWII
careers.
Khrushchev was a Commissar during WWII - that means he was one of the
Party's watchdogs of the Generals and Marshals of the Army of Workers
and Peasants Red Army. He was not responsible for conducting field
operations.
Lieutenant-General Khrushchev took part in the Battle of Stalingrad.
Both the Commissar and the clerk called Eisenhower were charged with
killing as many people as possible until the fight was over. At that
point killing people became more selective. It was time to win the peace
through political endeavors.
That's my perspective. Your own obviously differs.



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-08 10:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I'm not sure the /current/ occupant has the mental capacity
to be /fully/ in favor of anything.
Indeed, that's why I'm not, currently, overly concerned about his offhand remarks
about destroying cultural sites in Iran, as I believe the chances of that are
remote.
As for Soleimani - as he was maintaining Iranian influence by terror and murder,
I feel he was a legitimate target. Of course I'd have more confidence in the
decision to deal with him if it were made by a President I trusted, but that is
not a logical reason for concluding that the decision Trump took was a bad
decision.
How about hitting the #2 man in a government
Who is an one of your allied country with the permission of the allied government to discuss ways of reducing conflict (according to the Iraqi PM)
Without clearing the action with your ally.

Resulting in your ally considering expelling your diplomats.

With a predictable retaliation of missile attacks on your military bases.
Titus G
2020-01-10 05:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
If this hadn't been written by the UK's PM, I wouldn't have downloaded
an illegal copy, let alone read it but it was entertaining in a nasty way.
Everyone was a political stereotype and fairly stupid so it was easy
to laugh at them from a superior viewpoint. I was surprised at how
one-sided his characters were in expressing anti-American rhetoric,
("No one of importance had resigned, in the wake of the [torture]
scandal. None of the crack-brained neocons had really been confronted
with the full awfulness of their doctrines.")
<shrug>  Right now the American President is fully in favour of torture
and war crimes.
But a lap dog barking at its own master?
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-15 17:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A recap of this thread:

OP: Whining review of a book written by a British guy.
NPC1: Orange Man Bad!
NPC2: Orange Man Bad!
NPC1: That's what *I* said!
NPC3: Orange Man More Bad!

Sigh. It does say "sf" in the name of this news group.
Kevrob
2020-01-15 19:37:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
OP: Whining review of a book written by a British guy.
NPC1: Orange Man Bad!
NPC2: Orange Man Bad!
NPC1: That's what *I* said!
NPC3: Orange Man More Bad!
Sigh. It does say "sf" in the name of this news group.
Safron, foul!

If it's any consolation, I think the other side of
the aisle is bad, if in different ways. They are almost
all powermad busybodies, no matter where they sit.

Kevin R
Titus G
2020-01-15 19:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
OP: Whining review of a book written by a British guy.
Whining?
Post by p***@gmail.com
NPC1: Orange Man Bad!
NPC2: Orange Man Bad!
NPC1: That's what *I* said!
NPC3: Orange Man More Bad!
Sigh. It does say "sf" in the name of this news group.
Now that type of complaint is better described as whining.
Loading...