Iran Catch-All | Protester Massacre? CBS reports 12,000+ killed

[superrific]

Agree with me or not, when I'm right I'm right and when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have a pretty good hunch that I'm right about this one. You are more than welcome to hide in your basement waiting for WWIII, though.

Wait, who is the paranoiac here? The person who fears the type of retaliation that Iran absolutely could do because it's shown time and again that it can? Or the person who fears the prospect of Iran doing something that has never been done before; that they are incapable of doing; and would be suicidal for them.

Which of these events is more likely? What does your gut tell you about that? By the way, everyone has a hunch that they are right. That's why they hold the position they do. Most hunches, like most people, are wrong.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

I trust the US and other intelligence over Netanyahu, that has been lying about it for 30 years. Netanyahu’s evidence is “trust me, bro”

I think that’s fair. I do think there are three actors in this (Iran, Israel and the US). All said that Iran was close to a bomb.

 

[lawtig02]

Which of these facts are uncertain, again?

Among many others you’ve advanced on this thread —

1. We don’t know how far Iran was from a bomb.
2. We don’t know what the bombs actually did.
3. We don’t know what impact the bombs will have on Iran’s nuclear program.
4. We don’t know what Iran will do in response.
5. We don’t know what we will do in response to Iran’s response.

 

[superrific]

We needed to bomb them because there was no other way to take out this specific nuclear facility. It isn't a difficult point to understand. Iran's weakness made this a no-brainer....if they were stronger, they would actually be able to retaliate militarily in a significant manner. Right now, they can't.

All right. How long do you think Iran will take to get over this? In five years, when they rebuild their military (remember -- that's your premise, not mine), it will have blown over? You really think that?

It will have blown over for you. Iran is going to be seeking to retaliate for this for a generation, or a decade at least.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Wait, is this true? Who the hell is this guy?

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Dude. You completely misinterpreted what I said. I was specifically not judging anyone's intelligence by their occupation. Are you, or are you not acquainted with the work of anti-colonialist sociologist/cultural theorist Edward Said? I doubt you are. Not because you're not intelligent; rather, because you're not a humanities scholar.

Statistically speaking, the odds of someone having the academic ability to be a law professor (not counting the trade law schools) are extremely long. That's a fact. And all that academic ability has saved zero lives. I'm guessing you have saved a positive number of lives. Isn't that important? I think it's important. "Intelligence" is a vastly overrated ability/trait. It's prestigious but not nearly important as some people like to pretend. It's useful. So is work ethic, and bravery, and gumption, and "social intelligence" -- i.e. people skills -- to name a few. Not all basketball players can be Vince Carter. Some of them can aspire to be Tyler Hansbrough, though few have the personality traits to get there. Wouldn't you want both of them on your team?

You have to learn that just because you can say something a certain way doesn't mean that you should. You may be 100% correct in something, but if you say it the way you want to say it you can come across as insulting. For example, if you are a physician and you have a patient who is in their 90s, you shouldn't naturally assume that they have no concept about how the internet works or how to use a smartphone. Statistically speaking, you might be correct in assuming that people of that age are on average not as familiar with that technology as a 20 year-old, but if you come into the exam room and say, "Listen here, there is a great new fangled moving picture device that you can hold in your hand called a cell phone", you are going to insult a good number of people.

 

[Bobfripp]

Wait, is this true? Who the hell is this guy?

He looks menacing though, straight from Central Casting.

 

[farce©]

Agree with me or not, when I'm right I'm right and when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have a pretty good hunch that I'm right about this one. You are more than welcome to hide in your basement waiting for WWIII, though.

You most certainly are not right when you claim posters here "believe that the US should simply ship a few nuclear-laden ICBMs to Iran." That is called a lie, and your entire posting history reinforces that you are generally full of shit.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

As an0maly graciously pointed out, Iran was "less than a week" from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. You can't build a nuclear weapon in your grandma's garage. It is a tremendously complicated labor and resource-intensive effort, which is why there are only a handful of countries that have them. Taking out a nuclear enrichment facility that took many many years to build is a significant setback for Iran's nuclear program and it will take them some time to recover from it. There is a good chance that they will never be able to recover from these setbacks. That's why they built this facility literally inside of a mountain....they didn't want anything to happen to it.

That is simply not true. People have been saying for at least 25 years that Iran is "close" to getting a nuke, with no real evidence to that effect. As someone else posted yesterday, Netanyahu said 13 years ago that Iran was very close to having a nuke, which was obviously not true. By your own posts you stated that Israel had significantly set back Iran's attempts to build a bomb with their own recent attacks, and other posts have shown your statement that they'll "never be able to recover" from this is false. Your arguments about Iran being a paper tiger and not a threat to anyone continue to undermine your point that we needed to attack, but I am sure you will continue to defend this bombing no matter how much evidence is presented to you otherwise, as you appear to be oblivious to the evidence and points that everyone else is making.

 

[superrific]

It is a tremendously complicated labor and resource-intensive effort, which is why there are only a handful of countries that have them.

Out of curiosity, what do you know about nuclear physics to make you confident in this claim? It's actually not tremendously complicated, which is why we were able to develop one in the 1940s, when nuclear physics was in its infancy and we didn't even really understand how it worked.

It just takes a while to enrich the uranium. The process is not particularly complicated.

 

[Duke Mu]

We have interests all over the globe, and the spasmodic and entrenched tariff ploy and unilateral bombing ploy only makes the US weaker everywhere else. China remains the most important global adversary, and yesterday was another great day for Xi and China since Trump took office. And a bad day for Taiwan, SK, etc.

We're huge, drunk, and untrustworthy.

 

[nycfan]

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Among many others you’ve advanced on this thread —

1. We don’t know how far Iran was from a bomb.
2. We don’t know what the bombs actually did.
3. We don’t know what impact the bombs will have on Iran’s nuclear program.
4. We don’t know what Iran will do in response.
5. We don’t know what we will do in response to Iran’s response.

I suspect the first 3 points are actually well-known to those with higher security clearances than anyone here has. Particularly numbers two and three. An0maly's link stated that Iran was probably less than a week from developing a bomb....I think that might be a little generous, but I notice how you didn't jump on that poster for putting that out there.

For points 4 and 5, you are correct that we can't predict that future with 100% certainty. We can and do know that Iran is weaker now than it ever has been, and that is capability to respond is more diminished now than it ever has been. Those aren't opinions. Those are facts. To go back to my sports analogy, if you are playing football and are up by 3 in the 2nd quarter and you see that the defense has completely forgotten to cover your best receiver, you go for the easy touchdown. It doesn't matter that you might not need those points in the 4th quarter. There is a good chance that you might. And there is always the slight risk that your receiver pulls a hamstring or something while running 80 yards to the house. But you take the points. Iran left our best receiver open. We took the points.

 

[nycfan]

Wait, is this true? Who the hell is this guy?

His name is Thomas Fugate, and at least based on his title, it is true.

“The Intern in Charge”: Meet the 22-Year-Old Trump’s Team Picked to Lead Terrorism Prevention

One year out of college and with no apparent national security expertise, Thomas Fugate is the Department of Homeland Security official tasked with overseeing the government’s main hub for combating violent extremism.

www.propublica.org

“…
A year after graduation, the 22-year-old with no apparent national security expertise is now a Department of Homeland Security official overseeing the government’s main hub for terrorism prevention, including an $18 million grant program intended to help communities combat violent extremism.

The White House appointed Fugate, a former Trump campaign worker who interned at the hard-right Heritage Foundation, to a Homeland Security role that was expanded to include the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships. Known as CP3, the office has led nationwide efforts to prevent hate-fueled attacks, school shootings and other forms of targeted violence...”

 

[Zoo_View]

Wait, is this true? Who the hell is this guy?

Thomas Fugate

 

[lawtig02]

I suspect the first 3 points are actually well-known to those with higher security clearances than anyone here has. Particularly numbers two and three. An0maly's link stated that Iran was probably less than a week from developing a bomb....I think that might be a little generous, but I notice how you didn't jump on that poster for putting that out there.

For points 4 and 5, you are correct that we can't predict that future with 100% certainty. We can and do know that Iran is weaker now than it ever has been, and that is capability to respond is more diminished now than it ever has been. Those aren't opinions. Those are facts. To go back to my sports analogy, if you are playing football and are up by 3 in the 2nd quarter and you see that the defense has completely forgotten to cover your best receiver, you go for the easy touchdown. It doesn't matter that you might not need those points in the 4th quarter. There is a good chance that you might. And there is always the slight risk that your receiver pulls a hamstring or something while running 80 yards to the house. But you take the points. Iran left our best receiver open. We took the points.

And that leads us to another bad faith tactic — intentionally misreading articles like the one anomaly posted.

 

[superrific]

You have to learn that just because you can say something a certain way doesn't mean that you should. You may be 100% correct in something, but if you say it the way you want to say it you can come across as insulting. For example, if you are a physician and you have a patient who is in their 90s, you shouldn't naturally assume that they have no concept about how the internet works or how to use a smartphone. Statistically speaking, you might be correct in assuming that people of that age are on average not as familiar with that technology as a 20 year-old, but if you come into the exam room and say, "Listen here, there is a great new fangled moving picture device that you can hold in your hand called a cell phone", you are going to insult a good number of people.

Fuck you. I'm autistic. The things that come easily to you don't necessarily come easily to me. You know what comes extremely easy to me? Academic work. I have a bachelor's in physics; a master's in intellectual history; a JD; I worked as a computer programmer in law school making almost a hundred grand for about 15 hours a week of work. In the interim I learned finance and economics. There is no universe in which you could possibly compete with me in academic work, because very few people can.

What is much more difficult for me is hanging out in a crowd. I instinctively feel that people are against me (somewhat borne out by experience) and I don't easily make friends. And sometimes I don't communicate well in micro-details. It's especially a problem when I am addressing one person and other people are reading it.

My life experience is generally that people don't allow me to be proud of what I'm good at, and they also rub my face in what I'm not good at. It's really a shit sandwich.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

All right. How long do you think Iran will take to get over this? In five years, when they rebuild their military (remember -- that's your premise, not mine), it will have blown over? You really think that?

It will have blown over for you. Iran is going to be seeking to retaliate for this for a generation, or a decade at least.

That's fine if they want to retaliate. Wanting to and being able to are two different things. I want to have a threesome with two supermodels. I would really enjoy that. But at the end of the day I'm probably not going to be able to do that. That's where probabilities come into play. Let's say that if we did nothing there was a 1% chance that Iran would somehow detonate a nuke in Israel by 2035. We have over 700,000 US citizens living in Israel. So, odds are nothing would happen to them, but that 1% chance of a bad outcome would be REALLY bad if it came to fruition. Let's also say that by striking Iran we incur a 30% risk that Iran kills 100 Americans in a terrorist attack over the next two years, but the odds of them detonating a nuclear weapon by 2035 go down to 0.05%. I'd argue that we'd be stupid not to take those odds.

 

[superrific]

I suspect the first 3 points are actually well-known to those with higher security clearances than anyone here has. Particularly numbers two and three. An0maly's link stated that Iran was probably less than a week from developing a bomb....

LOL. If they were less than a week away, why didn't they finish? Israel attacked them last week. Oh, are you contending that Iran has been enriching uranium at 100% capacity all this time, and we got them just in time, one week before they were finished? And you think that's something that intelligence communities could estimate with precision?

 

[ZZLPHeels]

And that leads us to another bad faith tactic — intentionally misreading articles like the one anomaly posted.

Is this projection? Because I don't think I misread this:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I agree that you seem to be arguing in bad faith.