• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Live updates: Iran launches missile attack on airbase in Iraq housing US troops

FreedomGate

Mental Gymnastics 🥇Gold Medalist🥇
Oct 10, 2018
2,588
1,440
585
www.kickstarter.com
"No U" lol

Yes, I know that. And then I responded to him by expanding that context to include the American and British actions that lead to that.

I'm stating the fact that back then, it was more or less its own independent sovereign nation. It wasn't an Islamic theocracy with their slogan being "Death to America". Was it?
Outside some slight tolerance they were the same or worse in many aspects then than now. If the best you can come up with that's a major difference is not saying "death to america" that's not much of an argument.
 

petran79

Member
Sep 17, 2012
10,052
1,498
830
It's important to remember that nuking them was not based on "they are fucking maniacs", but on "we want to save lives of our soldiers".
The sad thing is,space explorations were possible because of the Nazi's V-Bomb, the first type of cruise missile. Nazi's could have developed and dropped an atomic bomb to London that way, were they left on their own.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,427
5,293
1,575
Best Coast
Outside some slight tolerance they were the same or worse in many aspects then than now. If the best you can come up with that's a major difference is not saying "death to america" that's not much of an argument.
Are you just completely leaving out the part about the Islamic Revolution? The authoritarian theocracy?

You can't just state that early 20th century Iran was just as bad as it is now. Prove it. Prove how many grievances they had against the USA back then relative to now.
 

FreedomGate

Mental Gymnastics 🥇Gold Medalist🥇
Oct 10, 2018
2,588
1,440
585
www.kickstarter.com
Are you just completely leaving out the part about the Islamic Revolution? The authoritarian theocracy?

You can't just state that early 20th century Iran was just as bad as it is now. Prove it. Prove how many grievances they had against the USA back then relative to now.
You clearly aren't in the right mind to have this conversation, you're whole argument hinges on the perception of Irans behavior for the US, I am not talking about the US, they were just as vicious as a nation back then as they are now. If you're only argument is they didn't go around boldly threatening the US that doesn't disprove anything. Not everything resolves aorund the US, especially since we are talking about IRAN IN GENERAL.

You basically pretend all their other actions and all the other countries stop existing in your argument.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,427
5,293
1,575
Best Coast
You clearly aren't in the right mind to have this conversation
You sure like to project a lot.

you're whole argument hinges on the perception of Irans behavior for the US, I am not talking about the US, they were just as vicious as a nation back then as they are now. If you're only argument is they didn't go around boldly threatening the US that doesn't disprove anything. Not everything resolves aorund the US, especially since we are talking about IRAN IN GENERAL.

You basically pretend all their other actions and all the other countries stop existing in your argument.
And I'm not talking about the US either. I'm talking about the history of Iran and how it's changed over the years. Somehow pointing out the fact that US and UK meddling has influenced the direction of Iran's history for the worse doesn't sit well with your worldview. It's in every history book. Try easing up on the mental gymnastics.

 

PanzerAzel

Member
Oct 31, 2019
150
202
235
I am sorry, but this is not serious.

You laid out the checklist, fine.

Then you take an item. The item reads "... a dictator having complete power". Supposedly you should show how Trump is a dictator having complete power or close to it. And what do you do? You say "I don't believe it unreasonable to think that if allowed, he'd make himself into what he appears to admire so much". This phrase of yours contains so many indirections, it is hard to count them all properly. Look -- "I (essentially) believe", "(not) unreasable (but no certainty)", "to think (no certainty again)", "that if allowed (and if not, then forget I said anything)", "he would (but maybe not)", "make himself into (something vague again, I would say a dictator, but for some reason I don't want to)" and "what he appears (but maybe I read him wrong) to admire" -- that's *7* departure points from what you are trying to show. And that's just a single phrase. And what you are trying to show comes from your own checklist, not from someone else's checklist.

I am sorry, but this is simply not serious.
That's a cute way of avoiding all the other points that've supported Trump's fascist tendencies. Why don't you address them instead of criticizing my manner of argument? And no, if you had bothered to actually look up the definition, my checklist comes directly from Dictionary.com. Are you arguing to me that that's invalid? That Trump has demonstrated no predisposition whatsoever to criteria in a checklist not of my own?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,790
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
That's a cute way of avoiding all the other points that've supported Trump's fascist tendencies. Why don't you address them instead of criticizing my manner of argument? And no, if you had bothered to actually look up the definition, my checklist comes directly from Dictionary.com. Are you arguing to me that that's invalid? That Trump has demonstrated no predisposition whatsoever to a checklist not of my own?
Why do we get such low-tier Trump detractors? The man has a thousand and one flaws and yet the best you can do is abuse dictionary definitions that don't even support your argument.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,790
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
The truly low tier are the Trump supporters who won’t even defend him. How do my points not support my argument?
A tip for the future: leaning on a dictionary definition doesn't work like it did back in middle-school. You make yourself look like a simpleton while simultaneously betraying the fact that you think very, very little of your conversation parter.

In response to your request, let's bring your definition into the open to examine:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Trump is not a dictator.

Trump does not have complete power.

Trump has been unable to suppress opposition and criticism.

Trump has not regimented all industry and in fact has been lambasted by his detractors for reducing gov't regulation on industry.

So-called "aggressive nationalism and often racism" are a historical descriptor of fascist states and and aren't inherently fascist, as non-fascist states in history are guilty of the same thing. It would be more accurate to say that fascism requires rapid transformation to keep itself from collapsing under its own weight, and both nationalism and racism are excellent (albeit evil) tools to accelerate the conversion.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
Oct 31, 2019
150
202
235
Trump is not a dictator.
Do you believe he would choose to be one had he the opportunity?
Trump does not have complete power.
I understand that, and so what?
Trump has been unable to suppress opposition and criticism.
Right, unable. Do you believe had he the power, he wouldn't take means to do so taking into consideration his degree of aggression toward criticism and the media?

If you want to present an argument viewing Trump within the context and confines of a system he is beholden to that he's not a fascist, there's no argument to be had. He's not allowed to be one. I'm not even arguing he is, I'm arguing that he has demonstrated some tendencies. Perhaps he wouldn't be if he were not restrained, but given his character, behavior and statements I've seen from him, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. If the chains were removed, I'd put money that Trump's worst inclinations would quickly manifest in his manner of governance, and that they'd tend to be very authoritarian in nature. There's nothing unreasonable in that opinion.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,790
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Do you believe he would choose to be one had he the opportunity?
My beliefs are irrelevant. It's your definition.

I understand that, and so what?
Well it's hard to call someone a fascist when they don't fit any of the characteristics of a fascist.

Right, unable. Do you believe had he the power, he wouldn't take means to do so taking into consideration his degree of aggression toward criticism and the media?
Another nonsensical deflection. My beliefs are irrelevant. It's your definition.

If you want to present an argument viewing Trump within the context and confines of a system he is beholden to that he's not a fascist, there's no argument to be had. He's not allowed to be one. I'm not even arguing he is, I'm arguing that he has demonstrated some tendencies.
Yeah, I kind of see what you're getting at, similar to how you've demonstrated some of the tendencies of someone explaining their position but so far haven't actually made one.

Perhaps he wouldn't be if he were not restrained, but given his character, behavior and statements I've seen from him, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.
No one cares about what you do or don't give the benefit of the doubt.

If the chains were removed, I'd put money that Trump's worst inclinations would quickly manifest in his manner of governance, and that they'd tend to be very authoritarian in nature. There's nothing unreasonable in that opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, but that's not the discussion.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
Oct 31, 2019
150
202
235
Well it's hard to call someone a fascist when they don't fit any of the characteristics of a fascist.
Sure, just like it's hard to call someone a criminal, not because they don't fit any of the characteristics of a criminal, but because they're precluded from being one.

Which leaves us only with their statements and character to judge what they'd be if they were allowed to run free.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,790
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Sure, just like it's hard to call someone a criminal, not because they don't fit any of the characteristics of a criminal, but because they're precluded from being one.

Which leaves us only with their statements and character to judge what they'd be if they were allowed to run free.
This isn't an argument.
 

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
12,737
1,399
955
No, I honestly see it for what is.

The US is deliberately starting wars to destabilize the ME and gain control.
There is no other country in the world that is waging war like the US.

And then have the audacity to accuse any form of resistance of terrorism.

Just my perspective on the US and it's geopolitics.
So...uh...warmongering huh? How's that crow taste?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OmegaSupreme
Aug 29, 2018
2,191
3,648
425
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Did......did Trump just force us out of the Middle East, while also forcing both parties in Congress to curtail the power of the Executive Branch over its insane ability to embroil us in war on a fucking whim?

I have no hope in Congress to retrieve it's balls from the Executive purse, but can you imagine a future where Trump's legacy is that he obliterated the undue power the Executive Branch has slowly acumulated over the past 50 years. He could go down in history as the man who forced the very definition of a coward to discover their spine.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,790
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Did......did Trump just force us out of the Middle East, while also forcing both parties in Congress to curtail the power of the Executive Branch over its insane ability to embroil us in war on a fucking whim?

I have no hope in Congress to retrieve it's balls from the Executive purse, but can you imagine a future where Trump's legacy is that he obliterated the undue power the Executive Branch has slowly acumulated over the past 50 years. He could go down in history as the man who forced the very definition of a coward to discover their spine.
It's almost like he was elected to drain the swamp and break up the establishment.

Nah, a bunch of knuckle-dragging deplorables are way too stupid to actually put someone into office like that. :goog_wink:
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,171
4,547
540
Moore Park Beach
Well, looks like Iran DID warn both Iraq and US before the strike so they could evacuate the personnel to safety first so that no one would be hurt.
I think someone suggested this could have happened a while earlier in this thread but was ridiculed for it by some others. Guess those folks should eat crow now.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ornlu

dragonfart28

Banned
Jun 12, 2009
5,106
736
1,080
I'm so fucking pissed off right now.

I'm so pissed off I couldn't make the war prevention joke at the beginning of this thread.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
481
714
590
@mainstreamfullypublictsocialmediaprofile

Guys, Trump is such a fascist omg. Look at this dictionary definition of fascist. . . LOOKATIT1!!!! It usesthe the word fascist which is what Trump is! How did we end up like this. I was watching CNN in the airport and they called him a ruthless dictator that suppresses all criticism of him and ruthlessly murders his critics and political rivals11!!!1 And they are right, just like Maddow has been saying for years now!!! It is only getting worse ... yesterday I was at the store after voting straight ticket D in my local election (They have a majority now as well =D) and on the magazine said Trump was a Nazi! I turned around and this black man that had on military clothes on was behind me - I asked him how he could work for such a brutal dictator . . . he just stared at me ... HEJUSTSTARED at Me! How can we live like this.

Needless to say, I sobbed all the way home.

@mainstreamfullypublictsocialmediaprofile

WOW guys! Thank you for the 200k likes and the follow from @HillaryClinton, @barackobama, and @Starwars who is sponsoring this post!

#TheResistance
 
Last edited:

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,906
1,055
1,320

It is hilarious that thats how people talk about a President. Incompetent criminal.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,931
4,682
670
Canada
He was obviously sick. You could tell he was congested during the speech. So when he fumbled a word and was having some breathing issues and dbags like Seth Meyers and randos on twitter talk shit about it I hope they never bitch about Tan Suit style gripes because that is all they do. Congrats on being the other side of the loser coin for that kind of nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,171
4,547
540
Moore Park Beach
The 737 is a resilient airframe as well. Aloha Airlines 243 stayed in the air and landed missing a huge chunk of the fuselage.





I have a hard time believing that uncontained engine failure alone would turn it into a fireball midair.
I know it is probably beating a dead horse at this point since I think it is getting clear it was not engine malfunction.

Anyway, aside from the impact vectors of the puncture woulds not focusing back to a single point where the engine is,
another reason engine failure could never cause the puncture wounds we saw on the wing tip and the h stabilizer is the fact that uncontained engine failure is not really an explosion driving the shrapnel.
An explosion would propel shrapnel out in every direction. That is not what happens with engine failures.
The shrapnel is not propelled by an explosion, instead the shrapnel is just the shattered blades of the front turbine.
As the turbine is spinning so very fast there is an enormous amount of kinetic energy stored in them due to the centripetal forces.
This means that when they shatter, they shoot outward. Out from the centre. Not forward, not backward but outward parallell to the spinning "disc".

See this example of when a spinning disk shatters. (hydraulic press channel guy. I love his channel)
This case the disk only splits into three separate fragments, but the important part is you can see that the shrapnel all leaves the centre and moves outward aligned in a plane. Nothing goes upwards, nothing goes down, ir all leaves straight out from the centre.

The exact same thing will happen when the turbine blades shatter and shoot out as shrapnel. You could expect damage to the front end of the wing as well as a lot of shrapnel to the cabin in the few seats immediately to the side of the turbine but no other part of the cabin would be hit by any shrapnel.
It basically shoots out shrapnel in just a roughly 2 dimensional plane parallell to the spinning turbine.
In contrast to an explosion which would shoot out shrapnel in all 3 dimensions.

That makes it very very implausible/impossible that engine failure could ever have caused the impact marks we saw.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Gp1 and Cybrwzrd

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
897
395
520
Someone asked how Trump is a fascist. I provided a definition (not of my own) and provided examples as to how he could be viewed as one.

People then attack me instead of refuting my points. And then I’m the one who has nothing? Sure.
I attacked not you but your argument.

I didn't get past the first item out of several items in your post because the very first item was so weak, it couldn't even begin to breathe, and I thought continuing with other items was unproductive. You objected to that and wanted me to discuss all items. A post after that DunDunDunpachi did this for me, addressing all of them. Notably, he also attacked your argument and your argument only, not yourself.

Your attempt to say that Trump is fascist because he fits the definition fails because he does not fit the definition on every single item. Now, if you want to pick a specific item and show how he does fit it, let's talk. Otherwise, let's close this line of arguing and admit that Trump is not a fascist, indeed.

---
OK, I see what the discussion is. You are wrong.

I'll pick just the first item again, sorry for not addressing all items for the second time in a row, but you are making the exact same mistake in each, so I would just be writing repeats. Here's the first item:

Do you believe he would choose to be one had he the opportunity?
It is immaterial whether Trump would choose to be a dictator if he had an opportunity. To be able to call him fascist - according to the definition which was not yours, fine, but was brought up as an operating point by yourself, not anyone else - he has to be a dictator. If he is not - and he is not - then he fails to fit the item in the definition, period.

If we were to go into what he would have been if he was given an opportunity bla bla bla, then let's talk about whether he *would have been a fascist, given an opportunity*, not whether he *is* a fascist. I doubt you'll find many people wanting to discuss that, though, because the discussion would likely center around perceptions and not facts. Would you have been a fascist given an opportunity? How do I know that you wouldn't? See? Not much to discuss.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,171
4,547
540
Moore Park Beach
Someone asked how Trump is a fascist. I provided a definition (not of my own) and provided examples as to how he could be viewed as one.

People then attack me instead of refuting my points. And then I’m the one who has nothing? Sure.
And then DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi refuted that and showed he did not fit any single criteria that your definition listed.
You come back then by basically saying "he could be, I feel he could be if I read his mind".
That is a really weak argument. Childish even.

Challenging you and pointing out that what you use to back your argument is nonsense is not attacking you.
It is just pointing out that your argument lacks merit. If you then can not counter that with a better argument, it is not attacking you, it is just that you lack capability to discuss with him.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
No. They would not have surrendered. So what if there were only 3 days, why would they need more than 3 hours to realize they should surrender after that? They almost didn't even after the second one.
Are you telling me that whoever decided to bomb actual people, instead of just demonstrating the power of the bombs, knew, that there were only super short window of opportunity to force Japan to surrender?
What would happen if demonstratively bombing terrain wouldn't have worked?
Bombing of actual cities.

What would be wasted in this case? A couple of nukes.

This kid didn't have to die:

 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,083
262
480
Are you telling me that whoever decided to bomb actual people, instead of just demonstrating the power of the bombs, knew, that there were only super short window of opportunity to force Japan to surrender?
What would happen if demonstratively bombing terrain wouldn't have worked?
Bombing of actual cities.

What would be wasted in this case? A couple of nukes.
Whoever made the decision had been fighting the Japanese for several years, an enemy who always fought to the last man and where the first Japanese civilians they encountered threw themselves of a cliff rather then be conquered. He would rightly assume that dropping a nuke on empty terrain would only convince the Japanese of how weak willed the Americans were.


This kid didn't have to die:

Thousands of people in Japanese occupied territories lived because the war ended 3 days sooner.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,171
4,547
540
Moore Park Beach
Whoever made the decision had been fighting the Japanese for several years, an enemy who always fought to the last man and where the first Japanese civilians they encountered threw themselves of a cliff rather then be conquered. He would rightly assume that dropping a nuke on empty terrain would only convince the Japanese of how weak willed the Americans were.




Thousands of people in Japanese occupied territories lived because the war ended 3 days sooner.
It is a lot more nuanced than that. Sometimes there are no good options, only less bad.
At the time, we already had a death count of 30 million on the eastern front alone.
Take into account that the world was tired of war, wanted to end it, and the Nipponese, face it, had a reputation to fight until the very last man and never surrender.

In light of that I think it fair, but brutal, to show enough force and determination to force Japan to surrender. Would the other option be another 30 million deaths to conquer them the conventional way?
I think the idea is they traded a quarter million/half million lives to get a quick peace instead of having to spend years and another 30 million lives.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
Whoever made the decision had been fighting the Japanese for several years, an enemy who always fought to the last man and where the first Japanese civilians they encountered threw themselves of a cliff rather then be conquered.
Nipponese, face it, had a reputation to fight until the very last man and never surrender.
Then, logically, they would not have surrendered at all, but instead, died fighting.

At the time, we already had a death count of 30 million on the eastern front alone.
Nuking Japan and Japan in general had absolutely nothing to do with capitulation of Germany.

All that while "surrounded by white man", to stress how racist, misogynistic and transphobic he is.
 
Dec 15, 2011
6,168
14,948
1,090
Article said:
The president completely bitched out. In fact, before the president stepped to the podium, Managing Editor Genetta Adams called it, noting that the president ain’t about that life.

“He’s going to pussy out like he did with [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi and the [government] shutdown. He’s really a chicken when someone punches back.”
These people are very clearly high on their own supply.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,790
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It is immaterial whether Trump would choose to be a dictator if he had an opportunity.
According to the Milgram obedience experiment (to say nothing of the well-documented behavior of the everyday soviets and nazis who "just followed orders"), many of us would be fascist dictators if we had the opportunity. Most cultures around the world have a story about the lethality of ultimate power when it falls into the hands of someone with weak morals. It's a flaw of human nature.

It betrays the narcissism of these ideologues when they almost seem to require their opponents to be morally inferior in order to cope. The notion that their opponents' ideas might be different or even better -- but not wrong out of hand -- fills them with great anxiety.
 
Last edited:

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,172
7,231
1,470

It is hilarious that thats how people talk about a President. Incompetent criminal.
Who exactly is this guy? Every time Trump tweets he usually has the top reply. It’s like he just sits on Twitter 24/7 mashing refresh waiting for Trump to tweet so he can leave some pissy reply. Since his whole life seems to revolve around Trump’s Twitter I can see why he is mad.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,583
1,212
920
Are you telling me that whoever decided to bomb actual people, instead of just demonstrating the power of the bombs, knew, that there were only super short window of opportunity to force Japan to surrender?
What would happen if demonstratively bombing terrain wouldn't have worked?
Bombing of actual cities.

What would be wasted in this case? A couple of nukes.

This kid didn't have to die:

What has been lost is the uncertainty and fear during WW2. To answer your question no one knew all that was certain was the US had to face perhaps the greatest army ever assembled on their own turf, the Japanese war cry: 100 million Japanese are willing to give their lives for the Emperor and Japan!
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,112
2,724
495
Are you telling me that whoever decided to bomb actual people, instead of just demonstrating the power of the bombs, knew, that there were only super short window of opportunity to force Japan to surrender?
What would happen if demonstratively bombing terrain wouldn't have worked?
Bombing of actual cities.

What would be wasted in this case? A couple of nukes.

This kid didn't have to die:

We should have been much more mindful of humanitarian practices, like the Japanese were during WW2, right?
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
What has been lost is the uncertainty and fear during WW2. To answer your question no one knew all that was certain was the US had to face perhaps the greatest army ever assembled on their own turf, the Japanese war cry: 100 million Japanese are willing to give their lives for the Emperor and Japan!
Oh, please.
USSR was there, with tens of millions of soldiers with war experience and overwhelming number of tanks/aircraft/artillery (and still pumping more).
Not that one needed that many, as even after the last mobilization, Japanese army in August 1945 was 7.2 million soldiers, many of them, inexperienced young men.

Sakhalin:

700–2,000 killed 18,202 surrendered
Because, centuries of Samurai dominance or not, people don't want to die.



Kuril Islands, 1 thousand killed, 50 thousand surrendered.



Hokkaido invasion was called off to avoid possible conflict with US/UK.


Japan didn't formally surrender until 2nd of September. Nukes were dropped in the beginning of August.

US have nuked about quarter a million of people with just two bombs, most of them civilians.
There were plans to use bombs as soon as they are produced, imagine what figures we would have had by now.

On the other hand, US own estimates of potential casualties, if not waiting for Stalin to faceroll Japan, but taking it over quickly (similarly to what happened in Europe) would mean about 500k dead American soldiers.

Now, I understand "my people > your people, even civilians", but let's not pretend there was nothing b


We should have been much more mindful of humanitarian practices, like the Japanese were during WW2, right?
We are literally on the side that has bombed Dresden which as no military/industrial facilities whatsoever and declared killing civilians an official tactic (yes, on the eastern front).
What were you asking, again?