Thread

Years ago, I noticed that in US public discourse, it's normal for all sides to be wrong.

Take Trump's decision to not retaliate against Iran for shooting down a reconnaissance drone.

youtube.com/watch?v=-c0jMsspE7

Tucker Carlson is wrong.

Every time we've used limited military force against Iran, they haven't responded.

So a series of air strikes would not have led to war.

Also, the aircraft were not in the air when Trump decided to not retaliate.

He never gave permission for the strikes to be carried out.

CNN's Samantha Vinograd is wrong.

Again, Trump did not make a decision and then change his mind.

He called together his national-security group, got a casualty estimate, and decided that it wasn't necessary to kill 150 Iranians at this point.

Apparently I am the only person on earth--besides Trump, Putin, and the people involved--who knows that Trump inflicted the worst military defeat on Russian in the entire history of the United States.

On February 7, 2018, near Deir Ezzor, Syria, we completed destroyed a Russian assault battalion called a Mobile Detachment Combat Group.

Three motorized infantry companies in infantry fighting vehicles, ten main battle tanks, six self-propelled howitzers, one grenade-launcher platoon, one mortar platoon, one antitank-gun platoon, one flamethrower platoon, and one heavy machine-gun platoon.

Only one tank and one armored vehicle were left.

Two infantry companies died instantly, according to the survivors.

This was RUSSIA, not Iran.

Back to Carlson.

Bombing Iran would not have ended Trump's political career.

The strikes would have been limited.

Carlson is under the delusion that an American strike will trigger a full-on war.

How can anybody think that? It's demented.

@ThomasWic past air strikes occurred before Iran built up their military weaponry. No one can guess with certainty how a country would react to being attacked. Carlon's guess is as good as anyone's, and it's at least based on Iran's rhetoric and their current capabilities. A counterattack could even be unconventional and plausibly deniable. Best not to guess to much about those kinds of things.

Follow

@fossviking @ThomasWic

" Carlon's guess is as good as anyone's, and it's at least based on Iran's rhetoric and their current capabilities. "

1) "guess"
2) Carlton "guessing" is as good as Trump's KNOWING?
3) Carlton's "guessing" based on IRAN's rhetoric?
4) Carlton's "guessing" based on Iran's "current capabilities?"?"
5) A Counterattack "plausibily deniable?

AND, the Piece of Resistance....

6) Best not to "guess" too much about "those" kinds of things?

Are you the "Q"?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.