Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

It does seem disproportionate to respond to "DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE" with "CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED".

After all, it's "words" Trump is upset by, and in response he's going to go literal Ghenhis Khan on them, apparently. You insulted us, so we kill your men, enslave your women and salt the Earth. Even the goats will cry for mercy. Maybe we can say "Trump didn't literally mean that", but saying you're going to do things worse than almost anyone has suffered "throughout history" is pretty literal.

[Loud Whispers]

It does seem disproportionate to respond to "DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE" with "CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED".

After all, it's "words" Trump is upset by, and in response he's going to go literal Ghenhis Khan on them, apparently. You insulted us, so we kill your men, enslave your women and salt the Earth. Even the goats will cry for mercy. Maybe we can say "Trump didn't literally mean that", but saying you're going to do things worse than almost anyone has suffered "throughout history" is pretty literal.

Trump accused Obama of preparing war against Iran in order to appear tough domestically

It's likely he is now doing the exact same thing at a time when he's spilling spaghetti over Ruskies

[Reelya]

For context, the full statement Trump was responding to was in fact this:

America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars

Which was widely reported in the USA as "Iran threatening America with the mother of all wars". The full context should show that this is slightly biased: the statement is clearly saying that if attacked Iran will fight with all their might. It's not an invasion threat. The phrasing was "war with Iran", i.e. referring to themselves in the third person as the target of the war, and not the instigators. The whole context, about "peace with Iran" first, makes that pretty clear.

Noam Chomsky talks about this kind of thing happening before. A small nation mentions their right of self defense against a major power, then in the major power's media there's outrage that the small nation "threatened" the larger power. A small nation merely expressing it's right to self defense against them is actually unthinkable, since it challenges the major power's dominance posturing (which is mostly for internal propaganda purposes).

[Egan_BW]

...Does he know what "consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered" means? Has he ever taken a history class? Are we literal Genghis Khan now?

[Rowanas]

I would like to think that Trump was familiar with The Rape of Nanking, The Rape of the Sabine Women (lotta rape in here), dropping nuclear weapons on Japan twice, even the bloody biblical accounts of David being asked for the foreskins of 100 Philistines, rocking up next day with 200 or Samson killing a city with a jawbone, the Vietnam War, the aforementioned Genghis Khan, Attila, all four hundred and twelve crusades, the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges etc.

And that's just the consequences suffered by nations, let alone the harrowing personal suffering of individuals, like the rape and torture of Boudicca's daughters, that fucker Fritzl's daughter, and the like.

There's a time and place for an assassination. The time is now. The place is wherever Trump's at.

[WealthyRadish]

I don't want to dredge up the particulars of the previous discussion about self-defense, but I think the way that it played out demonstrates some of the limitations that political discussions and communication in general have over the internet in comparison to speaking in person.

If a person in a physical discussion makes a claim that's indefensible and impossible for the others to seriously consider, there are innumerable visual and auditory cues that instantly communicate that to the speaker. If a teenager in a conversation with adults claimed that people should be shot as vigilante punishment for misdemeanors, at least in a circle like this the laughter, cringing, or other signs of instant dismissal would at the very least falter the speaker's conviction. If the speaker insisted on the point then the drop from levity to questions like "Wait, you're serious?" would be an unmistakable cue that the topic is doomed at least in that social context to be some sort of farce. On the internet however, when an opinion is aired that's so out of left field that nobody knows what to make of it, the challenge now for the others is to articulate concisely in words something that they would have expressed effortlessly (often without even speaking at all) in person.

This is good in some ways, since it's often very useful to think about these things in a challenging way, but it creates this enormously disproportionate burden to refute something ridiculous with a composed and measured response whose best refutation would simply be to laugh. It's sort of analgous to the "both sides" spectacles on cable news where a totally absurd position is given credibility just by being debated.

More broadly, it's telling that the most common first instinct that people who are revolted by Trump's obvious clownishness have is to laugh at him and ridicule the shitshow that politics has become, but this seems like a holdover from everyone's personal conversational experience which in truth has virtually no persuasive force outside of that environment. I'm not about to stop laughing, but it's also impossible to expect every instance of insane troll logic to get the careful dismantling that the topics deserve, and I almost always feel disappointment in the quality of the arguments against them, as any third-party viewer (the real audience) would likely go unconvinced. The sort of conversational social pressure I described above has major issues of its own and is dependent on what is considered acceptable in a given group, but at least it filtered out and stunted the development of some of the truly deranged outlooks that today can only be opposed by rehashing every development of thought in the last 200 years into a pithy and incomplete rebuttal.

Anyway, just a 4AM insomnia rant, I'll probably wake up and find it's all drivel

[Trekkin]

...Does he know what "consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered" means? Has he ever taken a history class? Are we literal Genghis Khan now?

Like I said when I posted about the tweet earlier, Trump is very insecure right now. The Butiina stuff and the summit have collectively done much to make the Republicans in particular concerned about Russia, and none of that can be attributed to Mueller or the Democrats or any of the usual scapegoats. He's trapped between his party and his Putin, and now there's new Cohen drama too, with Giuliani now failing to make headlines by automatically calling it exculpatory -- and headlines are all Rudy is good for.

This is Trump taking any excuse to act out, because he's trapped in more ways than his mind can simultaneously process and the people who used to regulate him are gone.

-snip-

Laying aside all the legal and moral problems with assassination, it's also counterproductive politically. Any power that can turn a man into a movement can also make a martyr out of him.

EDIT:

If a person in a physical discussion makes a claim that's indefensible and impossible for the others to seriously consider, there are innumerable visual and auditory cues that instantly communicate that to the speaker.

In this particular case, those cues are present even in this format. "I will shoot anyone trespassing on my property" is itself telling; one does not live in a castle unless one feels constantly under siege. It also tells you that they don't get many visitors.

More importantly, though, there's a clear note of fear in such posturing. I've known people like that; they universally live alone in the middle of nowhere and alternate between congratulating themselves on escaping the unwashed masses and being uncomfortably aware that those masses have very little reason aside from common decency and obscurity not to roll over them and take everything they have, since they've actively made themselves as profoundly irrelevant and useless as possible. Posturing about how they could and should and definitely will slaughter anyone coming unwanted into their space is a way of dealing with their anxieties about the likelihood of everyone either doing so or abetting it, and philosophizing about their moral right to do so is a tacit acknowledgment that it's all they've got to justify themselves.

EDIT EDIT: And, of course, they reduce everything to a tactical problem. They pride themselves on how hard they are to find -- but oh, how they wish someone would look!

[smjjames]

For context, the full statement Trump was responding to was in fact this:

America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars

Which was widely reported in the USA as "Iran threatening America with the mother of all wars". The full context should show that this is slightly biased: the statement is clearly saying that if attacked Iran will fight with all their might. It's not an invasion threat. The phrasing was "war with Iran", i.e. referring to themselves in the third person as the target of the war, and not the instigators. The whole context, about "peace with Iran" first, makes that pretty clear.

Noam Chomsky talks about this kind of thing happening before. A small nation mentions their right of self defense against a major power, then in the major power's media there's outrage that the small nation "threatened" the larger power. A small nation merely expressing it's right to self defense against them is actually unthinkable, since it challenges the major power's dominance posturing (which is mostly for internal propaganda purposes).

I wouldn't call Iran a 'small nation', both geographically and militarily, not even close Sure, their military would be no match to ours, but they are a competent military. It's just Trump reacting to a slight with rage dialed to 11.

-snip-

Laying aside all the legal and moral problems with assassination, it's also counterproductive politically. Any power that can turn a man into a movement can also make a martyr out of him.

No, impeachment is the answer, not assassination.

[hector13]

All these people are gonna look really dumb if Trump does in fact drop a nuke on Iran.

[Criptfeind]

I think the people who are going to (and are) looking dumbest are those who supported/voted for trump because they thought Hillary would be too warhawky and likely to drag us into conflict.

[Trekkin]

-snip-

Laying aside all the legal and moral problems with assassination, it's also counterproductive politically. Any power that can turn a man into a movement can also make a martyr out of him.

No, impeachment is the answer, not assassination.

...which was exactly my point, yes. Rowanas is the only person calling for assassination (other than Max, as ever.)

[smjjames]

I was reinforcing your point.

[Reelya]

For context, the full statement Trump was responding to was in fact this:

America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars

Which was widely reported in the USA as "Iran threatening America with the mother of all wars". The full context should show that this is slightly biased: the statement is clearly saying that if attacked Iran will fight with all their might. It's not an invasion threat. The phrasing was "war with Iran", i.e. referring to themselves in the third person as the target of the war, and not the instigators. The whole context, about "peace with Iran" first, makes that pretty clear.

Noam Chomsky talks about this kind of thing happening before. A small nation mentions their right of self defense against a major power, then in the major power's media there's outrage that the small nation "threatened" the larger power. A small nation merely expressing it's right to self defense against them is actually unthinkable, since it challenges the major power's dominance posturing (which is mostly for internal propaganda purposes).

I wouldn't call Iran a 'small nation', both geographically and militarily, not even close Sure, their military would be no match to ours, but they are a competent military. It's just Trump reacting to a slight with rage dialed to 11.

I don't really agree. They have pretty low spending by world and regional standards, and according to a few sources, most of their "high-tech" gear is American-made stuff: but is from the Shah period, e.g. mid 1970s. For example, their main fighter is F-14s that were delivered in 1976. They're noted as one of the only airforces still flying those on the F-14 wikipedia page. They also have a few dozen Mig29s and F1s, mainly stuff flown there by Iraqi defectors. For Iran, what is typically the most "high tech" arm of the military - air force fighters - is stuff from the 1960s and 1970s.

The point being, Iran might have a bunch of conscripts, but they're not investing in building "force-projection" systems, e.g. the ability to project power far outside their borders. The whole military doctrine there is entirely different to the USA, which is all about force-projection ability anywhere in the world. Iran ain't designing weapons systems to come at you, they're building hardened defense installations in case you attack them. The whole thing is so completely assymetrical that an argument about whether Iran will attack America or America will attack Iran is preposterous. Iran doesn't have systems designed to attack America, it has systems designed to survive an attack. They don't spend enough to have money spare for force-projection tech. The most likely scenario is them being attacked, and they know that, so all of their limited budget goes on planning for that scenario.

[Egan_BW]

I was reinforcing your point.

we are no longer a community who will tolerate your forum posts of violence and death be cautious

[smjjames]

For context, the full statement Trump was responding to was in fact this:

America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars

Which was widely reported in the USA as "Iran threatening America with the mother of all wars". The full context should show that this is slightly biased: the statement is clearly saying that if attacked Iran will fight with all their might. It's not an invasion threat. The phrasing was "war with Iran", i.e. referring to themselves in the third person as the target of the war, and not the instigators. The whole context, about "peace with Iran" first, makes that pretty clear.

Noam Chomsky talks about this kind of thing happening before. A small nation mentions their right of self defense against a major power, then in the major power's media there's outrage that the small nation "threatened" the larger power. A small nation merely expressing it's right to self defense against them is actually unthinkable, since it challenges the major power's dominance posturing (which is mostly for internal propaganda purposes).

I wouldn't call Iran a 'small nation', both geographically and militarily, not even close Sure, their military would be no match to ours, but they are a competent military. It's just Trump reacting to a slight with rage dialed to 11.

I don't really agree. They have pretty low spending by world and regional standards, and according to a few sources, most of their "high-tech" gear is American-made stuff: but is from the Shah period, e.g. mid 1970s. For example, their main fighter is F-14s that were delivered in 1976. They're noted as one of the only airforces still flying those on the F-14 wikipedia page. They also have a few dozen Mig29s and F1s, mainly stuff flown there by Iraqi defectors. So, point being their entire "high tech" arm of the military - air force fighters - is stuff from the 1960s and 1970s.

The point being, Iran might have a bunch of conscripts, but they're not investing in building "force-projection" systems, e.g. the ability to project power far outside their borders. The whole military doctrine there is entirely different to the USA, which is all about force-projection ability anywhere in the world. Iran ain't designing weapons systems to come at you, they're building hardened defense installations in case you attack them. The whole thing is so completely assymetrical that an argument about whether Iran will attack America or America will attack Iran is preposterous. Iran doesn't have systems designed to attack America, it has systems designed to survive an attack.

Point taken, but a land fight would still be a nasty one.