|
I'm curious what you think an 'actual journalist' would be doing right now. The situation isn't exactly conducive to personal investigation.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm curious what you think an 'actual journalist' would be doing right now. The situation isn't exactly conducive to personal investigation. Journalism is largely trash. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm curious what you think an 'actual journalist' would be doing right now. The situation isn't exactly conducive to personal investigation. Mapping out connections and context. To understand an event, you need to understand the situation it exists in. What is Iran's historical relationship with Japan, and how do the various political factions within Iran feel about that? Is Pompeo a reliable source on the Middle East and Iran in particular, and if not, why not specifically? What other incidents have recently happened in this area - what do we know about that Iranian oil rig explosion, for instance? What about the other Gulf states? How do they play into this? Cutting away context is one of the most dangerous tricks in propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
This loving thread 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:This loving thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Mapping out connections and context. To understand an event, you need to understand the situation it exists in. What is Iran's historical relationship with Japan, and how do the various political factions within Iran feel about that? Is Pompeo a reliable source on the Middle East and Iran in particular, and if not, why not specifically? What other incidents have recently happened in this area - what do we know about that Iranian oil rig explosion, for instance? What about the other Gulf states? How do they play into this? Cutting away context is one of the most dangerous tricks in propaganda. That sounds like a good article, you should link it if this ideal journalist pops into existence and produces such a work Nenonen posted:This loving thread 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:That sounds like a good article, you should link it if this ideal journalist pops into existence and produces such a work Shoe asked for 'ought', not 'is'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I think we'll likely need to dispense with the idea that the US government has a single coherent agenda here. Even within the Trump administration there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what they actually want to see happen. If you think there is a countervailing tendency within the Trump administration on this issue, you should provide evidence. I myself have not been able to find evidence of members of the Trump administration using this tanker incident to justify a military attack against Iran, but I have hardly seen everything. Perhaps you have seen a statement by Bolton that would contradict me? I've noticed there are a lot of people in this thread with very strong opinions about what is in the best interests of Iran and the United States, and what the intentions of these governments are. I have seen very little evidence provided to justify these opinions. I think people should start providing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
What I am concerned with is why it makes sense to use tools that are adapted to open-source data collection to analyze a closed-source video released by an interested party. This isn't some video a potentially pro-US or anti-Iran or pro-US-Iran-war activist posted up on Youtube, this is an official release by the US military.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PoliticalShort/status/1140269304274927617?s=19 lol if the UK follows us into another clusterfuck war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you think there is a countervailing tendency within the Trump administration on this issue, you should provide evidence. I myself have not been able to find evidence of members of the Trump administration using this tanker incident to justify a military attack against Iran, but I have hardly seen everything. Perhaps you have seen a statement by Bolton that would contradict me? While I ultimately agree that our incredibly moist President is for whatever reason probably the staunchest anti-war figure in the administration (which is a helluva clause to write) making increased military investment anywhere a remote possibility, Donald Trump has fired virtually every person to serve at his pleasure in his administration relating to intelligence, diplomacy and military deployments specifically because people like Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, and James Mattis keep going their own way. Bolton may well be next specifically because of current events. Tendentiously playing dumb about the infighting between the President and his own administration which has been the only constant of the last two years and yet presuming to lecture others about the Extremely Consistent FP Line coming from the white house is incredibly rich, and I do not think a handful of seconds digging up news articles about this overwhelming dynamic is a sincere request to meet a burden of proof on your part. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
I remember a month ago when the Trump Admin screamed bloody murder about two other tankers being attacked but their whining was mostly ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
This thread has talked about this false flag pretext for invasion more than Trump and the right wing talking heads tbh. And when time goes by and you don't get your war, it won't change anything. You won't stop to question yourselves for one second. You'll just keep on living in 2003 where things are easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you think there is a countervailing tendency within the Trump administration on this issue, you should provide evidence. I myself have not been able to find evidence of members of the Trump administration using this tanker incident to justify a military attack against Iran, but I have hardly seen everything. Perhaps you have seen a statement by Bolton that would contradict me? I'm mostly basing this on the fact that anonymous White House officials are telling the Times and Post that there's some disagreement regarding the best approach to Iran. While Trump called these reports fake news he also more or less confirmed that he's not completely onside with his own advisers at the moment: The Hill posted:President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers over the threat posed by Iran, saying hard-line aides could rush the U.S. into a military struggle with the Islamic republic and break his campaign pledge to avoid costly foreign wars, according to The Washington Post. The Hill posted:The Times reported Monday that acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan put together a plan at national security adviser John Bolton’s direction that called for up to 120,000 troops to be deployed to the region. This also lines up with suggestions that many people in the Pentagon are not enthusiastic about a conflict with Iran either. While this is not the same as a disagreement within the White House, there are reports suggesting Bolton wasn't confident in the US intelligence community backing up his claims and therefore went to the Israeli's to get the assessment he wanted: Truthdig posted:A Defense Department source said the intelligence showed “a change in behavior that could be interpreted to foreshadow an attack on American forces or interests,” according to The New York Times’ story on the matter. But the source didn’t actually say that any emerging intelligence had led to such a conclusion or even that any U.S. intelligence official has come to that conclusion. Obviously none of this is definitive proof of anything but one way of explaining all this would be that there's no clear consensus within either the White House or the Pentagon regarding Iran and therefore different factions are trying to advance their agenda through strategic leaks or announcements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:in science, if there is no empirical support for a statement, that statement is generally taken to be wrong. science is not, i'm sure you'll agree, terribly politically motivated what Absolutely not true for any academic field even tangentially related to institutions, economics and law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:what I....think he's being ironic? Also tons of human adjacent sciences are hella political too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:This thread has talked about this false flag pretext for invasion more than Trump and the right wing talking heads tbh. And when time goes by and you don't get your war, it won't change anything. You won't stop to question yourselves for one second. You'll just keep on living in 2003 where things are easy. ah, the good old days. back when you could still claim America was a force for good on the world stage from atop a steadily-rising pile of Iraqi corpses. it's okay, though, they were shiites. not technically people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I....think he's being ironic? The way this thread has been going for the last pages it's impossible to tell. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Tendentiously playing dumb about the infighting between the President and his own administration which has been the only constant of the last two years and yet presuming to lecture others about the Extremely Consistent FP Line coming from the white house is incredibly rich, and I do not think a handful of seconds digging up news articles about this overwhelming dynamic is a sincere request to meet a burden of proof on your part. I have not said anything about consistency in the foreign policy line. I just want to know where people got their assumptions about US policy. I feel like I've asked for a very minimal level of proof, as I have just asked for literally anything at all. In particular, I've seen several people say that the United States is going to use this recent incident as a pretext for military action against Iran. Insofar as I have looked into, every statement by President Trump or other members of his administration have downplayed the probability of this reaction. From public statements, it does not appear the US is planning an immediate response. Many people appear to believe otherwise, and they should justify this belief with some kind of evidence. Helsing posted:I'm mostly basing this on the fact that anonymous White House officials are telling the Times and Post that there's some disagreement regarding the best approach to Iran. While Trump called these reports fake news he also more or less confirmed that he's not completely onside with his own advisers at the moment: Yeah, I've heard a lot of stuff about disagreement within the Trump administration on Iran policy. I haven't however seen any public disagreement regarding the response to the tanker incident. Not to suggest that this is an idea of yours, but these reports of disagreements would also seem to be circumstantial evidence against the theory that this was an American false flag. If the main Iran-war hawks are Bolton and the Secretary of State, and they are opposing the President and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the hawks are going to have a hard time orchestrating a false flag under their opponents noses. The only American organizations capable of pulling off this operation are the military and CIA. I'm not sure what the scuttlebutt regarding the CIA's stance in all this is, but I feel they are unlikely, barring new information, to go against the President. Bolton has very little administrative power to organize anything. If this was a false flag, it appears to have failed in its objective to cause America to attack Iran. All indications now are that unless something else dramatic happens, the US will not escalate. Although with the way things are now the odds of a patrol boat straying too close to the US navy and getting lit up are pretty high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
"War isn't coming! It's fine! Trump is a saintly dove!", I scream to the stubborn lefties as the US send warships, missile batteries, and thousands of troops to the reinforce those already in the Gulf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Boy it sure is funny to see the usual gang of dictator lovers cry crocodile tears about an article explaining there is no proof at all that Iran bombed some ships. And then they go on to claim that the nothingburger is totally going to start a war? It's amazing. Lol get out of here with this BS. Are you really saying we should take at face value some "evidence" presented to us by an administration with a war boner against Iran in a post Iraq war world?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Lol get out of here with this BS. If Brown Moses had presented such evidence this post would be correct. He didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:If Brown Moses had presented such evidence this post would be correct. He didn't. ..uh, how else would you characterize the video released by the US Navy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:If Brown Moses had presented such evidence this post would be correct. He didn't. Brown Moses has nothing to do with it. I'm not even talking about him or his NYT article. I'm just saying simply that after the Iraq war fiasco and the "evidence" presented at that time that it's going to take a lot more than some lovely grainy video to convince people this time around. Especially when half the administration is made up of guys that have been openly jerking off to the idea of an Iran war for years. Edit: Oh and apparently questioning this BS evidence makes people "dictator lovers". Like I said, get out of here with that BS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
I mean it's the equivalent of a ship having trouble 20 miles off of the coast of delaware, of course a us coast guard ship (or in this case, Iranian Navy) ship is going to respond. What a shocker. Like I don't really doubt that the video shows what it purports to show (eg an Iranian vessel approaching the damaged tanker) because that's a 100% loving normal thing for a coast guard to do if there's a damaged oil tanker 10-20 miles off shore your most important waterway Granted their claim that they're removing a mine from the ship there's zero reason to think that and it specifically goes against the pile of people just nonchalantly hanging around. More likely they were removing a magnetic mooring system or something Brown Moses posted:I think this is something the reaction to the article has demonstrated clearly, those with strong political ideologies, left or right, are annoyed about its content because it doesn't support their conclusions based on their own political ideologies, because my intention wasn't to project my own political ideology onto the evidence. Intent is key, if you want to read some talking head explaining why it's clearly a false flag/definitely Iran responsible you have Fox News and Russia Today to watch for that. I just wanted to show that the evidence presented so far is inconclusive for either viewpoint, but apparently that's a rabidly pro-war/anti-American position, depending on your ideology. As a coward with no especially strong political ideology beyond 'war crimes and violence against civilians is bad' I objected to what you wrote on substance not ideology. That you had 200 words in there about the US's legacy of fabricating from whole cloth anti-Iran evidence of aggression absolutely changes things and if they removed that then they loving played you and used your name and reputation and you should be loving furious with them. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
Administration types are 100% trying to use this as a casus belli https://twitter.com/zacharybasu/status/1140284514503147521 Thankfully most of the rest of the world is mocking them for it, but they're agitating for strikes against Iran
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Reuters kept trying to put boots on the ground in the Straight of Hormuz but they kept drowning. Really curious where the open source detractors expect these reporters to be here. Embedded with the Navy? Stationed on every tanker? Maybe a little speedboat marked NEWS?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:That you had 200 words in there about the US's legacy of fabricating from whole cloth anti-Iran evidence of aggression absolutely changes things and if they removed that then they loving played you and used your name and reputation and you should be loving furious with them. I agree with this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Why would he be mad? It was a mutually beneficial exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Why would he be mad? It was a mutually beneficial exchange. I'm willing to extend someone whose organization just recently came out with a series of exposes on US involvement in the war in Yemen the benefit of the doubt. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Administration types are 100% trying to use this as a casus belli What specifically do you think they would do with a casus belli, people have been leaving this part pretty vague. The statements in that Axios article are pretty wishy washy, except for those of Tom Cotton who is not really an administration type. Pompeo sounds like he might be threatening the Iranian navy but he's clearly emphasizing diplomacy over other actions as a response. Maybe you could provide quotes to illustrate what the administration types want to happen, and are pushing to make happen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What specifically do you think they would do with a casus belli, people have been leaving this part pretty vague. The statements in that Axios article are pretty wishy washy, except for those of Tom Cotton who is not really an administration type. Pompeo sounds like he might be threatening the Iranian navy but he's clearly emphasizing diplomacy over other actions as a response. Graham, Pompeo, and Bolton are all pushing military action, that's a major contingent of people who actually affect poo poo in washington. A lot of RWM is beating the war drums, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What specifically do you think they would do with a casus belli, people have been leaving this part pretty vague. The statements in that Axios article are pretty wishy washy, except for those of Tom Cotton who is not really an administration type. Pompeo sounds like he might be threatening the Iranian navy but he's clearly emphasizing diplomacy over other actions as a response. Pretty much every US statement quoted in that article (except Cotton's) is along the lines of "we don't want to go to war, of course, but if Iran continues to commit heinous acts like this then we will be forced to respond and all options will be on the table". It's not very hard to read between the lines, since there's not a whole lot of options to begin with. Of course there'll be diplomacy first, but it's quite easy to make that fail if one side isn't negotiating in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Not quite related, but Mother Jones has published a two-parter on-the-ground report on US involvement in Syria. Haven't read either yet, but it sounds interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Like this poo poo is major news, go use google news? But here's a few https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/lindsey-graham-iran-military-response-1334416 “The fault lies with the Iranians, not the United States or any other nation,” Graham continued. “If the Iranian threats against American personnel and interests are activated we must deliver an overwhelming military response. Stand firm Mr. President.” here's where RWM stands: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/06/14/graham-to-trump-make-iran-feel-pain-hit-a-refinery-sink-their-navy/ Graham being on board with escalating to strikes is alarming af because he actually has Trump's ear in a way that almost no one else does ever since he became Trump's main golfing partner. Pompeo is not advocating any diplomatic poo poo, dude is a military intervention fetishist through and through. Main Paineframe posted:Pretty much every US statement quoted in that article (except Cotton's) is along the lines of "we don't want to go to war, of course, but if Iran continues to commit heinous acts like this then we will be forced to respond and all options will be on the table". It's not very hard to read between the lines, since there's not a whole lot of options to begin with. Of course there'll be diplomacy first, but it's quite easy to make that fail if one side isn't negotiating in good faith. It's notable that even in the DoD statement where they said 'we have no plans or desire to start another ground war in the Middle East and don't consider it in anyone's best interest,' the rest of the statement is emphasizing that we're keeping military options on the table Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Jun 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I agree with this. Yeah me too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Pretty much every US statement quoted in that article (except Cotton's) is along the lines of "we don't want to go to war, of course, but if Iran continues to commit heinous acts like this then we will be forced to respond and all options will be on the table". It's not very hard to read between the lines, since there's not a whole lot of options to begin with. Of course there'll be diplomacy first, but it's quite easy to make that fail if one side isn't negotiating in good faith. The United States has many options for escalation. These include, in order of increasing violence; 1) Military shows of force 2) Increased money and weapons supplied to the enemies of Iranian proxies, 3) Increased harassment/confrontation with Iranian naval assets in the Gulf, with potential for accidental violence on either side 4) Limited offensive attacks on Iranian naval assets 5) Limited attacks on military targets inside Iran like airbases and naval facilities 6) Large scale attacks against Iranian air defenses and infrastructure 6) Full scale land invasion and ground war. Obviously there are a lot of differences between the results of these different levels of escalation. I'm just curious what specifically people think is about to happen, and what they think the Trump administration can justify with a few blown up tankers. Judging by statements from within the Trump administration, the most probable moves by the US appear to be maybe 1-3 with no indication that there are plans for anything else. Herstory Begins Now posted:Like this poo poo is major news, go use google news? But here's a few I already did, maybe you missed those videos I posted earlier. I'm interested in seeing other people's reasoning though, so that I can be reassured people are not coming to conclusions based on instinct, intuition, or feelings. Those statements by Lindsey Graham are pretty horrifying. I personally wouldn't stake much on his ability to sway Trump on anything though, since I'm not sure he's ever succeed at doing that in the past. Personally I doubt Congress has much of any ability to influence these events at all, especially not when their opinion on the issue is obviously divided.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Like this poo poo is major news, go use google news? But here's a few Is this any surprise? Lindsey Graham is probably the biggest Hawk in the entire US Government and has been the most enthusiastic supporter of the Forever War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Yeah Graham is far more hawkish than Trump. Trump likes pushing us to the brink of war with countries to look tough, and abusing sanctions, but Graham actually wants to be at war with half the world. Trump's approach could lead to war due to miscalculation or one side or the other feeling backed into a corner due to a series of escalating bluffs that finally get called (if Iran did attack the tankers, it was to signal they aren't just going to capitulate as we destroy their economy), but Graham isn't the one making the decisions, as we saw when Trump announced the withdrawal from Syria multiple times (even if everyone dragged their feet both times until he forgot/changed his mind again), and when he cut the hawks off at the knees after escalating tensions with both North Korea and Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:A grift is a grift. Even piddly ones can keep a couple people in beer and skittles for a lifetime. I don’t know if you follow the Eastern Europe thread, but the Netherlands might be about to prosecute individuals for the MH-17 disaster with Bellingcat’s help. So, I guess Brown Moses nefarious grift is about to be exposed in Dutch court!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 03:42
|
|
