Discussion:
Trumpster regresses to the ground state of modern presidents - Muslim-killing
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-06 07:08:25 UTC
Permalink
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.

This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by decades.
CDB
2020-01-06 15:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it
was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing their
flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet another Muslim
state would lose millions of its citizens, its ecology permanently
damaged and its infrastructure set back by decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at first
anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be framed as an
unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate one.
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-06 16:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it
was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing their
flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet another Muslim
state would lose millions of its citizens, its ecology permanently
damaged and its infrastructure set back by decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at first
anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be framed as an
unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate one.
Please don't talk about "Americans" as if we are of one mind.

This issue is split, just about 50-50 as are most political issues in
the U.S. right now.

Why some of us are not rallying. Reasons for trump's actions:

1. Impeachment trial in the Senate is looming.
2. The election in November.
3. His comments years ago about President Obama starting a war in Iran
to get re-elected.

How goes the Union? Not well. Not well at all.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-06 17:23:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Jan 2020 08:07:31 -0800, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it
was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing their
flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet another Muslim
state would lose millions of its citizens, its ecology permanently
damaged and its infrastructure set back by decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at first
anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be framed as an
unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate one.
Please don't talk about "Americans" as if we are of one mind.
My thoughts exactly. I ain't rallying.
Post by Mack A. Damia
This issue is split, just about 50-50 as are most political issues in
the U.S. right now.
1. Impeachment trial in the Senate is looming.
2. The election in November.
3. His comments years ago about President Obama starting a war in Iran
to get re-elected.
4. He had to trump the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Post by Mack A. Damia
How goes the Union? Not well. Not well at all.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
CDB
2020-01-07 15:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents
- it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
Please don't talk about "Americans" as if we are of one mind.
Two minds at least. Trump's best shot at winning next year is in
keeping his base and making sure they all rally round and vote. A war
would help with that, at least until casualties began to mount.
Post by Mack A. Damia
This issue is split, just about 50-50 as are most political issues in
the U.S. right now.
1. Impeachment trial in the Senate is looming. 2. The election in
November. 3. His comments years ago about President Obama starting a
war in Iran to get re-elected.
How goes the Union? Not well. Not well at all.
The rock and copper have migrated to the top, but he still needs to
sheathe his bottom. This means war!

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602901h.html
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-07 16:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents
- it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
Please don't talk about "Americans" as if we are of one mind.
Two minds at least. Trump's best shot at winning next year is in
keeping his base and making sure they all rally round and vote. A war
would help with that, at least until casualties began to mount.
Post by Mack A. Damia
This issue is split, just about 50-50 as are most political issues in
the U.S. right now.
1. Impeachment trial in the Senate is looming. 2. The election in
November. 3. His comments years ago about President Obama starting a
war in Iran to get re-elected.
How goes the Union? Not well. Not well at all.
The rock and copper have migrated to the top, but he still needs to
sheathe his bottom. This means war!
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602901h.html
Tony made a good point about trump wanting to outdo Obama's military
action killing bin Laden. He and his supporters still consider
President Obama as being an illegitimate president regardless of the
facts.

Article about trump and evangelicalism. Granting unto Caesar and God
and all that. Older white man, a former ruling elder in the
Presbyterian Church In America (Fundamentalist Presbyterianism) is the
author:

https://www.smerconish.com/news/2020/1/6/hes-my-president-not-my-pastor

My written reply to him:

"Feeling white and fading today, are we?"
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-07 19:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Americans tend to rally round their president in
time of war, at first anyway. No doubt any se-
rious Iranian response will be framed as an un-
provoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
Please don't talk about "Americans" as if we are
of one mind.
Isn't that why he omitted the definite article be-
fore `Americans' and wrote `tend'?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-06 17:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it
was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
So is killing Americans in America, for certain muslim fundamentalists.
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing their
flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet another Muslim
state would lose millions of its citizens, its ecology permanently
damaged and its infrastructure set back by decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at first
anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be framed as an
unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate one.
I guess the Iranians will have more sense than that.
This is mostly a war by proxy on all sides anyway.
So some others will do something killing somewhere else.

Like Gadaffi for Iran at Lockerbie, perhaps,
but probably someone will think of something else,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-06 18:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it
was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
So is killing Americans in America, for certain muslim fundamentalists.
Killing Americans in America seems to be a fun occupation for some Americans.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-06 20:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents - it
was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
So is killing Americans in America, for certain muslim fundamentalists.
Killing Americans in America seems to be a fun occupation for some Americans.
Of course, 9/11 was marginal compared with that,
but they don't feel it that way.
One god-given right isn't like another,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-06 23:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Killing Americans in America seems to be a fun occupation for some Americans.
Of course, 9/11 was marginal compared with that,
but they don't feel it that way.
One god-given right isn't like another,
Try looking up the proportions of the various sorts of death by gunfire
in the US: suicide; accident; intentional killing; mass shooting. I think
you'll find that the proportions are in that order, with the last one
being minuscule in number (but it's the only kind that attracts press
attention).

It's nice that you two think it's something to joke about.
occam
2020-01-07 13:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Killing Americans in America seems to be a fun occupation for some Americans.
Of course, 9/11 was marginal compared with that,
but they don't feel it that way.
One god-given right isn't like another,
Try looking up the proportions of the various sorts of death by gunfire
in the US: suicide; accident; intentional killing; mass shooting. I think
you'll find that the proportions are in that order, with the last one
being minuscule in number (but it's the only kind that attracts press
attention).
And what is the difference between the last two - intentional killing
and mass shooting? Is mass shooting unintentional? They are the same.

The difference between the first two and the last category is that
intentional killing is done with the blessing of the NRA. It can be
avoided, but it is vehemently defended. And /that/ is the joke. It may
not be funny, in the same way that the Pumpkin is a joke and not funny
any more. And you will re-elect him, which is hilarious.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-07 13:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Killing Americans in America seems to be a fun occupation for some Americans.
Of course, 9/11 was marginal compared with that,
but they don't feel it that way.
One god-given right isn't like another,
Try looking up the proportions of the various sorts of death by gunfire
in the US: suicide; accident; intentional killing; mass shooting. I think
you'll find that the proportions are in that order, with the last one
being minuscule in number (but it's the only kind that attracts press
attention).
And what is the difference between the last two - intentional killing
and mass shooting? Is mass shooting unintentional? They are the same
All kinds of violent death pale into insignificance compared with
direct or indirect effects of obesity, but that doesn't mean we should
ignore them.
Post by occam
The difference between the first two and the last category is that
intentional killing is done with the blessing of the NRA. It can be
avoided, but it is vehemently defended. And /that/ is the joke. It may
not be funny, in the same way that the Pumpkin is a joke and not funny
any more. And you will re-elect him, which is hilarious.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 15:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Killing Americans in America seems to be a fun occupation for some Americans.
Of course, 9/11 was marginal compared with that,
but they don't feel it that way.
One god-given right isn't like another,
Try looking up the proportions of the various sorts of death by gunfire
in the US: suicide; accident; intentional killing; mass shooting. I think
you'll find that the proportions are in that order, with the last one
being minuscule in number (but it's the only kind that attracts press
attention).
And what is the difference between the last two - intentional killing
and mass shooting? Is mass shooting unintentional? They are the same.
Specifically chosen victim (such as your ex-spouse's lover) vs. opening
fire on a random group of people. It seems that the latter occasionally
is triggered by the former, but that is less common.
Post by occam
The difference between the first two and the last category is that
intentional killing is done with the blessing of the NRA. It can be
avoided, but it is vehemently defended. And /that/ is the joke. It may
not be funny, in the same way that the Pumpkin is a joke and not funny
any more. And you will re-elect him, which is hilarious.
The original NRA (before the rightwing nutcases got ahold of it, which
I think one story said was around 1970) was for the enthusiasts of
shooting sports, which included hunting. Nowadays it serves as the
lobbying agency of the gun manufacturers, and the "deplorables" who
sign on are their stooges.
HVS
2020-01-06 18:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).

I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
John Varela
2020-01-06 19:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
--
John Varela
HVS
2020-01-06 19:41:43 UTC
Permalink
-snip -
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate
responses, and
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting
civilians,
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute
"proportionate
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the
assassination of
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
Would undoubtedly work for some people...

Cheers, Harvey
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-06 19:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
--
athel
Peter Young
2020-01-06 21:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
What about Pence, though. He's said to be intelligent, which is scary.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-06 23:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
What about Pence, though. He's said to be intelligent,
By whom? Boris?
Post by Peter Young
which is scary.
Peter Moylan
2020-01-07 00:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 18:02:32 UTC, HVS
Post by HVS
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute
"proportionate responses", but I suspect the US establishment
wouldn't agree that, strictly speaking, a "proportionate
response" to the assassination of one country's top general
would be....the assassination of the other country's top
general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
What about Pence, though. He's said to be intelligent, which is scary.
The thought of Pence in power for three or four years was scary, which I
suppose is why Trump got away with his earliest impeachable actions.
Some would argue, though, that one year of Pence would be tolerable.

Strangely, Australia is now in a similar situation. Our Prime Minister
is likely to be forced to resign, in my judgement, but his likely
replacement is a very scary person.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2020-01-07 07:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 18:02:32 UTC, HVS
Post by HVS
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute
"proportionate responses", but I suspect the US establishment
wouldn't agree that, strictly speaking, a "proportionate
response" to the assassination of one country's top general
would be....the assassination of the other country's top
general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
What about Pence, though. He's said to be intelligent, which is scary.
The thought of Pence in power for three or four years was scary, which I
suppose is why Trump got away with his earliest impeachable actions.
Some would argue, though, that one year of Pence would be tolerable.
Strangely, Australia is now in a similar situation. Our Prime Minister
is likely to be forced to resign, in my judgement, but his likely
replacement is a very scary person.
You might want to call Vlad Putin...I'm sure he could find someone more
to your liking....r
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-07 13:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Vlad Putin
Vlad is for Vladislav.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 13:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by RH Draney
Vlad Putin
Vlad is for Vladislav.
I'm pale after seeing the horror of this mistake,

Jan
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-07 16:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by RH Draney
Vlad Putin
Vlad is for Vladislav.
I'm pale after seeing the horror of this mistake,
"Listen to them, the children of the site. Oh what puns they make!"
RH Draney
2020-01-08 07:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by RH Draney
Vlad Putin
Vlad is for Vladislav.
I'm pale after seeing the horror of this mistake,
"Listen to them, the children of the site. Oh what puns they make!"
"I never drink -- the Kool Aid"....r
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-08 11:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by RH Draney
Vlad Putin
Vlad is for Vladislav.
I'm pale after seeing the horror of this mistake,
"Listen to them, the children of the site. Oh what puns they make!"
After a well spent nite I last the pale,
and now I feel completely revamped.

Does that put me beyond the pale?

Jan
Peter Moylan
2020-01-07 13:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by RH Draney
Vlad Putin
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?

My name is Vladimir
And I came from Vladivostok
And I'm Vlady vlady vlady glad I did.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-07 13:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
Yes, Vova. Vladimir is formed by two roots:
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
Post by Peter Moylan
My name is Vladimir
And I came from Vladivostok
And I'm Vlady vlady vlady glad I did.
came/did or come/do ?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter Moylan
2020-01-07 14:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
Yes, Vova. Vladimir is formed by two roots: `vladet' -- to
own and `mir' -- world.
Thanks. My understanding of the latter word is restricted to Война и
мир, where of course the meaning is different.
Post by Peter Moylan
My name is Vladimir And I came from Vladivostok And I'm Vlady vlady
vlady glad I did.
came/did or come/do ?
Either, I suppose. The tenses agree in either case.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-07 17:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
Yes, Vova. Vladimir is formed by two roots: `vladet' -- to
own and `mir' -- world.
Thanks. My understanding of the latter word is restricted to Война и
мир, where of course the meaning is different.


"Miru mir", peace to the world (Soviet slogan).

http://www.newhollandsp.ru/en/events/art/miru-mir/
--
Jerry Friedman
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-09 16:30:27 UTC
Permalink
[this post encoded in KOI8-R]
Post by Jerry Friedman
"Miru mir", peace to the world (Soviet slogan).
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world was
мiр and peace мир.
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://www.newhollandsp.ru/en/events/art/miru-mir/
They have Y instead of У!
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-09 17:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
[this post encoded in KOI8-R]
Post by Jerry Friedman
"Miru mir", peace to the world (Soviet slogan).
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world was
мiр and peace мир.
You can perhaps answer a question I have wondered about. One can
understand why the reformers thought they didn't need both i and и. But
why drop i rather than than и, which seems the obvious choice for
people used to the roman alphabet? In this case e and ѣ they do seem to
have made the obvious choice.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://www.newhollandsp.ru/en/events/art/miru-mir/
They have Y instead of У!
--
athel
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-13 21:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world
was ЛiП and peace ЛХП.
You can perhaps answer a question I have wondered
about. One can understand why the reformers
thought they didn't need both i and Х. But why
drop i rather than than Х, which seems the obvious
choice for people used to the roman alphabet? In
this case e and З they do seem to have made the
obvious choice.
I know not, but offer the following conjectures:

1. The more frequent letter was kept and the less
frequent one removed.

2. The only thin glyph (i) was removed in order
to render printed text more uniform and sim-
plify the design of typewriter fonts.

I you have other reasons than the layman's curiosity
for asking the question, I can try to find the actu-
al answer.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-14 07:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Anton Shepelev
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world
was ЛiП and peace ЛХП.
You can perhaps answer a question I have wondered
about. One can understand why the reformers
thought they didn't need both i and Х. But why
drop i rather than than Х, which seems the obvious
choice for people used to the roman alphabet? In
this case e and З they do seem to have made the
obvious choice.
1. The more frequent letter was kept and the less
frequent one removed.
I thought of that as a possibility, but old Russian texts the obsolete
alternative to e seems to occur very frequently.
Post by Anton Shepelev
2. The only thin glyph (i) was removed in order
to render printed text more uniform and sim-
plify the design of typewriter fonts.
I you have other reasons than the layman's curiosity
for asking the question,
No. Just idle curiosity.
Post by Anton Shepelev
I can try to find the actu-
al answer.
--
athel
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-13 21:06:53 UTC
Permalink
[encoding fixed]
Post by Anton Shepelev
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world
was мiр and peace мир.
You can perhaps answer a question I have wondered
about. One can understand why the reformers
thought they didn't need both i and и. But why
drop i rather than than и, which seems the obvious
choice for people used to the roman alphabet? In
this case e and ѣ they do seem to have made the
obvious choice.
I know not, but offer the following conjectures:

1. The more frequent letter was kept and the less
frequent one removed.

2. The only thin glyph (i) was removed in order
to render printed text more uniform and sim-
plify the design of typewriter fonts.

I you have other reasons than the layman's curiosity
for asking the question, I can try to find the actu-
al answer.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-09 19:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
[this post encoded in KOI8-R]
Post by Jerry Friedman
"Miru mir", peace to the world (Soviet slogan).
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world was
мiр and peace мир.
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://www.newhollandsp.ru/en/events/art/miru-mir/
They have Y instead of У!
That's nothing. Have you seen the Armenian fonts they have these days?
Ross
2020-01-09 23:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
[this post encoded in KOI8-R]
Post by Jerry Friedman
"Miru mir", peace to the world (Soviet slogan).
Before the Lenin-Lunacharsky reform the world was
мiр and peace мир.
The orthographic difference is interesting, since
the two meanings for this same form go back a
long way: OCS миръ apparently translates both
Gk ειρήνη (peace) and κόσμος (world). Vasmer
considers the "peace" sense the original. From
"peaceful association" to "village community" and
at length "world".

So was the pre-Revolutionary difference in vowel
letters just an arbitrary way of distinguishing
these two senses?
Dingbat
2020-01-07 14:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
Reminds me of Mir Publishers in Moscow. The best explanation of relativity
I've read was in a book published by them in English.

Coming to MIR meaning WORLD, does MIR bear any relation to YMIR, the
giant whose body makes up the world, in Norse mythology?
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter Moylan
My name is Vladimir
And I came from Vladivostok
And I'm Vlady vlady vlady glad I did.
came/did or come/do ?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-07 17:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
Yes, Vova.
What about "Volodya"? Not short enough? Or am I confused?
Post by Anton Shepelev
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
Which means about the same thing as "Donald". Coincidence?
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2020-01-08 07:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
Yes, Vova.
What about "Volodya"? Not short enough? Or am I confused?
Post by Anton Shepelev
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
Which means about the same thing as "Donald". Coincidence?
Wait...so they both have first names that mean "to own the world", *and*
they both have last names that mean "fart"?...

If I hadn't seen photos of the two of them together, I might be inclined
to suspect something....r
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-14 17:28:55 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anton Shepelev
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
Which means about the same thing as "Donald". Coincidence?
Wait...so they both have first names that mean "to own the world", *and*
they both have last names that mean "fart"?...
If I hadn't seen photos of the two of them together, I might be inclined
to suspect something....r
Maybe we can call them both "World-Owner Fart" and people can
disambiguate by context, if necessary.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 17:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Anton Shepelev
Vlad is for Vladislav.
So is there a short form for Vladimir?
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
I thought of V(o)lodya -- is that a thing?
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-09 15:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
`vladet' -- to own and `mir' -- world.
I thought of V(o)lodya -- is that a thing?
Yes, and the 'o' is mandatory in this endearing
form, but it is not short.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-07 08:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
What about Pence, though. He's said to be intelligent, which is scary.
He's there in case everything else falls apart and someone is needed
to head a new theocracy.

bill, no hand (maids)
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-07 19:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway.  No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 20:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Assassination of American presidents has never been classified
as 'terrorism', so far,

Jan
Quinn C
2020-01-07 22:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Assassination of American presidents has never been classified
as 'terrorism', so far,
The actions of white people are rarely classified as terrorism in the
US.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Anders D. Nygaard
2020-01-09 21:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
The actions of white people are rarely classified as terrorism in the
US.
Oklahoma? Or was that classified as another nut-job over there?
(Yes, I did see you wrote "rarely". I'm exploring exceptions)

/Anders, Denmark.
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-10 15:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
The actions of white people are rarely classified as terrorism in the
US.
Oklahoma? Or was that classified as another nut-job over there?
(Yes, I did see you wrote "rarely". I'm exploring exceptions)
It was widely considered terrorism. Probably not as widely as the
Sept. 11 attacks. It was also probably classified as another nut-job.

(We'd normally say "Oklahoma City", unless we were more specific.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2020-01-07 23:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:48:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway.  No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Definitely. Now to convince some nice white christian gunman that Trump
isn't christian enough and needs to be removed.
I wouldn't even joke about that. As an anti-Trump American, my wish
is that he remain in office until the completion of his term and then
be voted out. Soundly. And with a stain on his party that makes
Pence unelectable should he run.

Pence is a greater danger to Americans. He might be preferable to
non-Americans, but he could have a greater detrimental effect on what
most Americans want than Trump. Trump alienates people, and alienates
the people he needs the cooperation of. Pence can do more damage to
female rights, LBTG rights, and the rights of those who oppose
religious domination. He's an ass-kisser who can actually work with
both the Republican base and the Republican moderates.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-08 00:00:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 18:55:34 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:48:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway.  No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Definitely. Now to convince some nice white christian gunman that Trump
isn't christian enough and needs to be removed.
I wouldn't even joke about that. As an anti-Trump American, my wish
is that he remain in office until the completion of his term and then
be voted out. Soundly. And with a stain on his party that makes
Pence unelectable should he run.
Pence is a greater danger to Americans. He might be preferable to
non-Americans, but he could have a greater detrimental effect on what
most Americans want than Trump. Trump alienates people, and alienates
the people he needs the cooperation of. Pence can do more damage to
female rights, LBTG rights, and the rights of those who oppose
religious domination. He's an ass-kisser who can actually work with
both the Republican base and the Republican moderates.
If trump were removed one way or another, I don't think Pence would
have the popularity to be re-elected, and as far as an election
campaign is concerned, he would be starting from scratch.

Just a hunch.

(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-08 02:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 18:55:34 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:48:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway.  No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Definitely. Now to convince some nice white christian gunman that Trump
isn't christian enough and needs to be removed.
I wouldn't even joke about that. As an anti-Trump American, my wish
is that he remain in office until the completion of his term and then
be voted out. Soundly. And with a stain on his party that makes
Pence unelectable should he run.
Pence is a greater danger to Americans. He might be preferable to
non-Americans, but he could have a greater detrimental effect on what
most Americans want than Trump. Trump alienates people, and alienates
the people he needs the cooperation of. Pence can do more damage to
female rights, LBTG rights, and the rights of those who oppose
religious domination. He's an ass-kisser who can actually work with
both the Republican base and the Republican moderates.
If trump were removed one way or another, I don't think Pence would
have the popularity to be re-elected, and as far as an election
campaign is concerned, he would be starting from scratch.
Just a hunch.
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
here we go again - American weapons scientists get a live testing range.

to fight a man you have to be able to hit him or his hand that is wielding the weapons. Americans shoot from standoff-range (in a fair war they are only cowardly pussies who would lose decisively and go home crying to their mommies).

Iranians would ONLY be able to see bombs and missiles coming at them - not American planes or ships or soldiers. they are the same retarded morons as the Iraqis - conflating war with only taking hits.

It is not clear who is more to blame - bestial Americans showing bestiality or batshit-crazy Muslims who provoke them with batshit craziness.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-08 16:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 18:55:34 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:48:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway.  No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Definitely. Now to convince some nice white christian gunman that Trump
isn't christian enough and needs to be removed.
I wouldn't even joke about that. As an anti-Trump American, my wish
is that he remain in office until the completion of his term and then
be voted out. Soundly. And with a stain on his party that makes
Pence unelectable should he run.
Pence is a greater danger to Americans. He might be preferable to
non-Americans, but he could have a greater detrimental effect on what
most Americans want than Trump. Trump alienates people, and alienates
the people he needs the cooperation of. Pence can do more damage to
female rights, LBTG rights, and the rights of those who oppose
religious domination. He's an ass-kisser who can actually work with
both the Republican base and the Republican moderates.
If trump were removed one way or another, I don't think Pence would
have the popularity to be re-elected, and as far as an election
campaign is concerned, he would be starting from scratch.
Just a hunch.
He'd have to be nominated by his party. It's too late in most states
to have a Republican primary from scratch, so it would be someone like
Rubio or Cruz (wouldn't that be ironic -- a nonwhite Republican candidate).

Romney and Kasick already had their own opportunities to fail, so it
isn't going to be a moderate.
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-09 03:19:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 18:55:34 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:48:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Varela
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway.  No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
I've not seen much discussion of what would constitute "proportionate
responses", but I suspect the US establishment wouldn't agree that,
strictly speaking, a "proportionate response" to the assassination of
one country's top general would be....the assassination of the other
country's top general.
How about commander in chief?
I was wondering about that: it seems by far the best solution.
It would be best if that resulted from domestic terrorism, since that
seems to cause far less upset than the foreign sort.
Definitely. Now to convince some nice white christian gunman that Trump
isn't christian enough and needs to be removed.
I wouldn't even joke about that. As an anti-Trump American, my wish
is that he remain in office until the completion of his term and then
be voted out. Soundly. And with a stain on his party that makes
Pence unelectable should he run.
Pence is a greater danger to Americans. He might be preferable to
non-Americans, but he could have a greater detrimental effect on what
most Americans want than Trump. Trump alienates people, and alienates
the people he needs the cooperation of. Pence can do more damage to
female rights, LBTG rights, and the rights of those who oppose
religious domination. He's an ass-kisser who can actually work with
both the Republican base and the Republican moderates.
If trump were removed one way or another, I don't think Pence would
have the popularity to be re-elected, and as far as an election
campaign is concerned, he would be starting from scratch.
Just a hunch.
He'd have to be nominated by his party. It's too late in most states
to have a Republican primary from scratch, so it would be someone like
Rubio or Cruz (wouldn't that be ironic -- a nonwhite Republican candidate).
Romney and Kasick already had their own opportunities to fail, so it
isn't going to be a moderate.
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-09 14:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
(But why? He could get much more money -- might even make it to $1B if
he lets someone with some brains (which seems to let out Don Jr., Eric,
and Jared; maybe Ivanka?) run the company.)
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-09 15:10:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:19:12 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
(But why? He could get much more money -- might even make it to $1B if
he lets someone with some brains (which seems to let out Don Jr., Eric,
and Jared; maybe Ivanka?) run the company.)
You shouldn't have to ask, "why?"

Anyway, the answer is ego, hubris and power.
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-10 04:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.

It appears that there was no Iran government intention to do so,
but somebody had an itchy trigger-finger.

The ultimate reason for the incident was Trump ordering that
Iran general to be assassinated with a drone. Iran replied by
sending missiles to unpopulated parts of U.S. air bases, and
then nervously awaited the next U.S. response. They might have
thought the Ukrainian passenger plane was the next step
in the conflict.

None of those people would have died if Trump could contain
his murderous impulses. They also would not have died if
the Ukrainian airline had considered that this might not
been a great time to fly over Iran's airspace.

Overall, it's another great Trump blunder.

bill
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-10 04:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
It appears that there was no Iran government intention to do so,
but somebody had an itchy trigger-finger.
The ultimate reason for the incident was Trump ordering that
Iran general to be assassinated with a drone. Iran replied by
sending missiles to unpopulated parts of U.S. air bases, and
then nervously awaited the next U.S. response. They might have
thought the Ukrainian passenger plane was the next step
in the conflict.
None of those people would have died if Trump could contain
his murderous impulses. They also would not have died if
the Ukrainian airline had considered that this might not
been a great time to fly over Iran's airspace.
Overall, it's another great Trump blunder.
"The Washington-based Pew study, released Wednesday, found that among
people it polled in 32 countries, 29% express confidence in Trump.
Sixty-four percent say they lack confidence in the White House
occupant."

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-poll-shows-woeful-international-confidence-trump

Can't find the latest poll I just heard about, but I think it said
that 55% of those polled think trump has made the world less safe, and
only 24% think he has made it safer. 21% don't know.
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-10 06:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Overall, it's another great Trump blunder.
"The Washington-based Pew study, released Wednesday, found that among
people it polled in 32 countries, 29% express confidence in Trump.
Sixty-four percent say they lack confidence in the White House
occupant."
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-poll-shows-woeful-international-confidence-trump
Can't find the latest poll I just heard about, but I think it said
that 55% of those polled think trump has made the world less safe, and
only 24% think he has made it safer. 21% don't know.
It's good to know that a majority at least have misgivings. I think
he is a threat to the futures of billions of people.

bill
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-10 08:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact. That
this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.

More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
It appears that there was no Iran government intention to do so,
but somebody had an itchy trigger-finger.
The ultimate reason for the incident was Trump ordering that
Iran general to be assassinated with a drone. Iran replied by
sending missiles to unpopulated parts of U.S. air bases, and
then nervously awaited the next U.S. response. They might have
thought the Ukrainian passenger plane was the next step
in the conflict.
None of those people would have died if Trump could contain
his murderous impulses. They also would not have died if
the Ukrainian airline had considered that this might not
been a great time to fly over Iran's airspace.
It's not obvious how to take off from Teheran airport without flying
over Iran's airspace.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Overall, it's another great Trump blunder.
bill
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-10 14:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact.
There is much more than that by now.
BTW, the Dutch military intelligence service (the MIVD)
claims that they have independent evidence
for a missile causing the crash.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
That depends on where you count the Canadian Iranians on board,

Jan
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-10 19:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact. That
this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.
You have no idea where my information came from. By the time I wrote
the above, the prime minister of Canada had publicly announced
that the government had multiple intelligence sources,, internal
and external, confirming it was an Iranian missile that brought
the plane down, most likely launched in error due to the "fog of war"
atmosphere in Iran that day.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
Mentioning the Canadian dead is an old journalistic habit. I wrote
for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian news media.
It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less than Canadian
ones. You do not have information to validate that assumption.

bill
John Varela
2020-01-10 22:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact. That
this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.
the above, the prime minister of Canada had publicly announced
that the government had multiple intelligence sources,, internal
and external, confirming it was an Iranian missile that brought
the plane down, most likely launched in error due to the "fog of war"
atmosphere in Iran that day.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian news media.
It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less than Canadian
ones. You do not have information to validate that assumption.
You wrote to your audience. Canadians want to know the fate of
Canadians, Americans of Americans, Brits of Brits, etc.

My thought is that, during an earlier tense period, a US warship
shot down an Iranian airliner. And the Russians shot down a
Malaysian aircraft over Ukraine. Those things do happen. I believe
the US is the only one to have acknowledged responsibility, at least
so far. The Soviets did finally acknowledge they had shot down KAL
007, but claimed it was a spy plane.
--
John Varela
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-11 19:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact. That
this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.
the above, the prime minister of Canada had publicly announced
that the government had multiple intelligence sources,, internal
and external, confirming it was an Iranian missile that brought
the plane down, most likely launched in error due to the "fog of war"
atmosphere in Iran that day.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian news media.
It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less than Canadian
ones. You do not have information to validate that assumption.
You wrote to your audience. Canadians want to know the fate of
Canadians, Americans of Americans, Brits of Brits, etc.
My thought is that, during an earlier tense period, a US warship
shot down an Iranian airliner. And the Russians shot down a
Malaysian aircraft over Ukraine. Those things do happen. I believe
the US is the only one to have acknowledged responsibility, at least
so far.
If only they had, they might have prevented Lockerbie, [1]

Jan

[1] Instead of court martiallng Captain William C. Rogers III
they awarding him the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally
meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as
commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989.
(so also for mass murdering 290 civilians aboard Iran Air 655)
You might want to look at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655>
and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III>
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-11 08:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact. That
this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.
the above, the prime minister of Canada had publicly announced
that the government had multiple intelligence sources,, internal
and external, confirming it was an Iranian missile that brought
the plane down, most likely launched in error due to the "fog of war"
atmosphere in Iran that day.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian news media.
It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less than Canadian
ones. You do not have information to validate that assumption.
bill
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-11 08:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:22:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq. Stay tuned)
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran has
used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian airliner,
killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as fact. That
this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA may have escaped
your attention.
the above, the prime minister of Canada had publicly announced
that the government had multiple intelligence sources,, internal
and external, confirming it was an Iranian missile that brought
the plane down, most likely launched in error due to the "fog of war"
atmosphere in Iran that day.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian news media.
It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less than Canadian
ones. You do not have information to validate that assumption
Sorry. I seem to have pressed "Send" by accident. I wasn't intending to
send anything, but given that I did press "Send" I'll just add this.
Now that the Iranian government has recognized the error one can call
it a fact. But that's today; yesterday it was speculation.
--
athel
CDB
2020-01-11 14:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
(Iran has fired rockets at U.S. military bases in Iraq.
Stay tune
No casualties. Deliberately, or bad aim/guidance?
Iran doesn't want war, and trump only wants to get
re-elected.
It might not have been big news in your country, but Iran
has used a missile strike to to bring down a Ukrainian
airliner, killing all 176 on board including 63 Canadians.
For the moment you're just repeating American speculation as
fact. That this speculation is useful as propaganda in the USA
may have escaped your attention.
You have no idea where my information came from. By the time I
wrote the above, the prime minister of Canada had publicly
announced that the government had multiple intelligence sources,,
internal and external, confirming it was an Iranian missile that
brought the plane down, most likely launched in error due to the
"fog of war" atmosphere in Iran that day.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the
report you read forgot to mention that.
We have been told that the "Canadians" mentioned were Canadian citizens;
others were landed immigrants here, and many of the rest were headed for
Canada to continue their studies (Kyiv has direct flights). Most
of them were a loss to Canada of family, friends, and respected colleagues.

Myself, I think the plane was shot down deliberately, though without the
knowledge of the central government; its deliberately ineffectual
retaliation would have frustrated many enthusiasts.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Mentioning the Canadian dead is an old journalistic habit. I
wrote for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian
news media. It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less
than Canadian ones. You do not have information to validate that
assumption
Sorry. I seem to have pressed "Send" by accident. I wasn't intending
to send anything, but given that I did press "Send" I'll just add
this. Now that the Iranian government has recognized the error one
can call it a fact. But that's today; yesterday it was speculation.
IMO that last sentence needs quotation marks around "a fact" and
"speculation". It's been a fact since it happened, but iy's reasonablr
to say that it shouldn't have been called one until the mullahs fessed up.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-11 14:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
More Iranians than Canadians were killed, but apparently the report you
read forgot to mention that.
for Canadian audiences my whole working life in Canadian news media.
It does not mean that I value non-Canadian lives less than Canadian
ones. You do not have information to validate that assumption.
Yesterday, a Canadian reporter told NPR (or WNYC) that the Teheran-to-
Kiev plane was a connecting flight, and there were 130 empty seats on
the Kiev-to-Toronto flight it was connecting with. Regardless of the
passports held by the victims, they were almost all heading for Canada.

And he made a point of saying that they are all considered Canadians,
whether or not they were recent immigrants, second-generation or
beyond, etc.: Canada doesn't hyphenate like the US. He made a claim
about multiculturalism that is perhaps belied by indigenous language
policies, but that's a different question for another time.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-06 20:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-06 20:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-06 21:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-06 21:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.
I didn't know it was called that, but I knew it existed.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-06 21:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.
I didn't know it was called that, but I knew it existed.
It is what it is called by everybody, except right wing Americans.
Officially it has another name, but that name is not memorable,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-06 23:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.
So why is Kissinger still on the loose? You "indicted" him decades ago.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 09:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.
So why is Kissinger still on the loose? You "indicted" him decades ago.
?????

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 14:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.
So why is Kissinger still on the loose? You "indicted" him decades ago.
?????
There are said to be several countries he can't visit because of outstanding
arrest warrants from the ICJ.

You'd think a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater like you would know that.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 15:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Of course I know.
They are conditionally at war with the Netherlands on account of that,
by the The Hague Invasion Act.
So why is Kissinger still on the loose? You "indicted" him decades ago.
?????
There are said to be several countries he can't visit because of outstanding
arrest warrants from the ICJ.
You are inventing things again.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You'd think a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater like you would know that.
You are inventing things again.

Jan
Tony Cooper
2020-01-06 22:38:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 21:49:51 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by s***@gmail.com
killing Muslims abroad is a win-win-win for American presidents -
it was only a matter of time before Trump resorted to that.
This could get ugly (if the idiotic Iranians start believing
their flowery rhetoric) with the inevitable result that yet
another Muslim state would lose millions of its citizens, its
ecology permanently damaged and its infrastructure set back by
decades.
Americans tend to rally round their president in time of war, at
first anyway. No doubt any serious Iranian response will be
framed as an unprovoked attack, or at least a disproportionate
one.
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate responses, and
it's fairly straightforward to list some of them (targetting civilians,
multi-national groups, or non-military sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
Surely you've realized by now that the USA is never guilty of war crimes?
Eddie Gallagher, a former Navy SEAL, was charged with war crimes. He
was acquitted on that charge, but convicted of another crime. Trump
pardoned him.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS
2020-01-07 11:12:27 UTC
Permalink
-snip-
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate
responses, and it's fairly straightforward to list some of them
(targetting civilians, multi-national groups, or non-military
sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
I'm not sure of your point. That's precisely why they'd be
disproportionate.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 12:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate
responses, and it's fairly straightforward to list some of them
(targetting civilians, multi-national groups, or non-military
sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
I'm not sure of your point. That's precisely why they'd be
disproportionate.
Surely responses can be disproportionate, like declaring war on Iran,
without being war crimes?

Jan
HVS
2020-01-07 12:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate
responses, and it's fairly straightforward to list some of them
(targetting civilians, multi-national groups, or non-military
sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
I'm not sure of your point. That's precisely why they'd be
disproportionate.
Surely responses can be disproportionate, like declaring war on Iran,
without being war crimes?
Indeed. But since war crimes are by definition disproportionate, I'm
not sure of the point of placing them in a separate category in the
discussion.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 13:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate
responses, and it's fairly straightforward to list some of them
(targetting civilians, multi-national groups, or non-military
sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
I'm not sure of your point. That's precisely why they'd be
disproportionate.
Surely responses can be disproportionate, like declaring war on Iran,
without being war crimes?
Indeed. But since war crimes are by definition disproportionate, I'm
not sure of the point of placing them in a separate category in the
discussion.
By whose definition? I think a crime is a crime,
whether or not it is disproportionate
by someones judgement of proportions,

Jan

BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out
revenge attacks on cultural targets.
It will be interesting to see what happens
if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless.
A mutiny of generals? Massive resignations?
Peter Moylan
2020-01-07 13:34:20 UTC
Permalink
BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out revenge
attacks on cultural targets. It will be interesting to see what
happens if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless. A mutiny
of generals? Massive resignations?
I am puzzled by the announcement that US troops will be withdrawn from
Iraq, following by an announcement that the previous announcement was
wrong. That, to me, sounds very much like a disagreement between Trump
and his advisers.

Could a US military revolt cause a collapse of the administration? I'm
awaiting further developments.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 15:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out revenge
attacks on cultural targets. It will be interesting to see what
happens if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless. A mutiny
of generals? Massive resignations?
I am puzzled by the announcement that US troops will be withdrawn from
Iraq, following by an announcement that the previous announcement was
wrong. That, to me, sounds very much like a disagreement between Trump
and his advisers.
It wasn't an "announcement," but a draft of a letter from the commander
of US forces in Iraq that was being circulated for comment.
Post by Peter Moylan
Could a US military revolt cause a collapse of the administration? I'm
awaiting further developments.
Rich Ulrich
2020-01-07 17:07:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 07:04:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out revenge
attacks on cultural targets. It will be interesting to see what
happens if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless. A mutiny
of generals? Massive resignations?
I am puzzled by the announcement that US troops will be withdrawn from
Iraq, following by an announcement that the previous announcement was
wrong. That, to me, sounds very much like a disagreement between Trump
and his advisers.
It wasn't an "announcement," but a draft of a letter from the commander
of US forces in Iraq that was being circulated for comment.
Or was it a draft? Oddly (for a draft), it was on letterhead,
had the current date, and had no marking to show that it
was a draft (those were mentioned on MSNBC).

My first thought was about how this White House, unlike
previous ones, is known for announcements with typographical
errors, misspellings, and other evidence of sloppy review.
And, "Trump taints everything he touches."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Could a US military revolt cause a collapse of the administration? I'm
awaiting further developments.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 17:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 07:04:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out revenge
attacks on cultural targets. It will be interesting to see what
happens if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless. A mutiny
of generals? Massive resignations?
I am puzzled by the announcement that US troops will be withdrawn from
Iraq, following by an announcement that the previous announcement was
wrong. That, to me, sounds very much like a disagreement between Trump
and his advisers.
It wasn't an "announcement," but a draft of a letter from the commander
of US forces in Iraq that was being circulated for comment.
Or was it a draft? Oddly (for a draft), it was on letterhead,
had the current date, and had no marking to show that it
was a draft (those were mentioned on MSNBC).
but, they keep saying, it was "unsigned"
Post by Rich Ulrich
My first thought was about how this White House, unlike
previous ones, is known for announcements with typographical
errors, misspellings, and other evidence of sloppy review.
And, "Trump taints everything he touches."
Someone talking to Brian Lehrer this morning (I missed both the beginning
and end of the segment, so I don't know who he was, but he seemed somewhat
favorable to the Administration) said it was "much more than a draft" --
it had been translated into Arabic for transmission to the Iraqis, for
instance. What it shows mostly is the utter chaos within the Administration.
Even Pompeo said our troops wouldn't attack "scultural ites" -- whereupon
Trump doubled down on the threat.

Is it too late for Pompeo to extricate himself from the mess and run for
Senate, or would his seat be all but guaranteed to return to the D
incumbent for six more years?
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Could a US military revolt cause a collapse of the administration? I'm
awaiting further developments.
There are two sources for tweets under Trump's name: the immediately
identifiable ones from him, and the ones that are grammatical and
innocuous. The latter are done by an aide whose job is to get ordinary
information out as needed.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-07 19:36:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:07:54 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It wasn't an "announcement," but a draft of a letter from the commander
of US forces in Iraq that was being circulated for comment.
Or was it a draft? Oddly (for a draft), it was on letterhead,
had the current date, and had no marking to show that it
was a draft (those were mentioned on MSNBC).
In an earlier thread the word "claimed" was discussed with that word's
various meanings. I think that someone *claimed* that it was a draft.
That does not mean it was or was not a draft. It means that someone
said it was a draft.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 21:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:07:54 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It wasn't an "announcement," but a draft of a letter from the commander
of US forces in Iraq that was being circulated for comment.
Or was it a draft? Oddly (for a draft), it was on letterhead,
had the current date, and had no marking to show that it
was a draft (those were mentioned on MSNBC).
In an earlier thread the word "claimed" was discussed with that word's
various meanings. I think that someone *claimed* that it was a draft.
That does not mean it was or was not a draft. It means that someone
said it was a draft.
From Pompeo, or maybe Trump, on down.
Rich Ulrich
2020-01-08 17:23:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:05:50 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:07:54 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It wasn't an "announcement," but a draft of a letter from the commander
of US forces in Iraq that was being circulated for comment.
Or was it a draft? Oddly (for a draft), it was on letterhead,
had the current date, and had no marking to show that it
was a draft (those were mentioned on MSNBC).
In an earlier thread the word "claimed" was discussed with that word's
various meanings. I think that someone *claimed* that it was a draft.
That does not mean it was or was not a draft. It means that someone
said it was a draft.
From Pompeo, or maybe Trump, on down.
On the "draft" issue - Reportedly, the Iraqis had some
question about the translation to Arabic that had been
provided, and were provided an improvement when
they asked for it.

In the news - The Iraqis apparently are treating it as
a real promise and commitment to withdraw, using the
argument that it came through official channels.

At the behest of the out-going prime minister, the Iraqi
parliament already had voted, unanimously, that the
US should withdraw (which perhaps is considered as
an advisory opinion to the government, and not an
official demand).
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 14:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out
revenge attacks on cultural targets.
It will be interesting to see what happens
if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless.
CinC
Post by J. J. Lodder
A mutiny of generals? Massive resignations?
Indictment of Trump for war crimes, not to mention impeachment.
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-07 15:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by HVS
I've read articles which have discussed disproportionate
responses, and it's fairly straightforward to list some of them
(targetting civilians, multi-national groups, or non-military
sites).
Some of these responses are classified as war crimes, these days,
I'm not sure of your point. That's precisely why they'd be
disproportionate.
Surely responses can be disproportionate, like declaring war on Iran,
without being war crimes?
Indeed. But since war crimes are by definition disproportionate, I'm
not sure of the point of placing them in a separate category in the
discussion.
By whose definition? I think a crime is a crime,
whether or not it is disproportionate
by someones judgement of proportions,
For instance, killing one enemy soldier with a chemical weapon is a
war crime, though as far as the number of deaths goes it may be a
proportionate response to an attack.

Is treating POWs disrespectfully--say, not addressing high-ranking
prisoners by their ranks--a war crime?
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the pentagon has just said that they will not carry out
revenge attacks on cultural targets.
It will be interesting to see what happens
if Trump, as CiCh orders them to do it nevertheless.
A mutiny of generals? Massive resignations?
Obeying an illegal order is illegal. If Trump does order them to
attack a non-military cultural target and they refuse, they're legally
not guilty of anything. They'd be stupid to resign, because their
replacements might carry out the order. This may be the scenario
Secretary of Defense Esper had in mind when he said the U.S.
military wouldn't attack cultural targets.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-06 22:08:32 UTC
Permalink
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

By the physics jargon from Quantum Mechanics that you are abusing
you don't 'regress' to a ground state,

Jan
Jack
2020-01-07 01:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
By the physics jargon from Quantum Mechanics that you are abusing
you don't 'regress' to a ground state,
Loading...