The Right Side of the News

If it's not arguments woven around facts but just a statement of opinion, that makes me even less inclined to listen. Opinions are cheap - everybody's got 'em. Nobody disputes that - why would I waste my time listening to Kasraie to tell me what everyone already knows? Does she also state that Soleimani was Iran's highest ranking military official carrying out official Iranian policy? Fake claim. Again. That's all you do.Criticizing Trump for breaking international law and further worsening the situation with Iran, a process of deterioration that he initiated by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord, is not mourning the death of a terrorist. Could you say something true for a change? You're being scammed. Iranians in general have no love for America and are not thanking us for assassinating their top general, one who had an approval rating in Iran about double that of Trump in the US. I'm neither for Kasraie nor against her. The question is why are you promoting her with no vetting? The answer is obvious - you never vet anything. Your grammar's a bit odd, maybe there's a word missing, but this implies that I've posted about a video I haven't seen. That is incorrect. I haven't posted anything about the video. What I've said is that you're violating rule 5 by not making the argument in your own words while using the video link as a supporting reference.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Correct misspellings.

Are you privy to inside information, or is this just baseless opinion? Yet another thing you have no way of knowing, but one thing we know is that Trump is as inconstant as the wind when it comes to things outside his expertise, which would be most things. Iran will undoubtedly, over the course of time, murder more Americans. Whether Trump will retaliate or not, who knows.This is a good time to remind you of this Trump tweet: The reason this is a good time to remind you of this is because more information about the casualties from the Iran ballistic missile attack on our bases in Iraq keeps emerging. First it was just eleven service members, and Trump Dismissed Troops’ Possible Brain Injuries as ‘Headaches’:

quote:

---

President Trump on Wednesday dismissed concussion symptoms reported by several American troops after Iranian airstrikes on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq as not very serious, even as the Pentagon acknowledged that a number of service members were being examined for possible traumatic brain injury caused by the attack.

---

Trump's compassion for our troops is compelling. What he's worried about isn't our troops but his own image. Then more information emerged when we find out that 34 Troops Have Brain Injuries From Iranian Missile Strike, Pentagon Says - The New York Times:

quote:

---

The Defense Department said Friday that 34 American service members have traumatic brain injuries from Iranian airstrikes on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, contradicting President Trump’s dismissal of injuries among American troops this week.

​

A Pentagon spokesman, Jonathan Hoffman, told a news conference that eight of the affected service members have returned to the United States from an American military hospital in Germany.

​

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump dismissed concussion symptoms felt by the troops as not very serious, even as the Pentagon acknowledged that a number of American service members were being studied for possible traumatic brain injury caused by the attack.

---

Fox News? Crickets. I guess they've got all their people hard at work following up on the unhinged interview with Giuliani on Fox & Friends this morning. How many weeks has Giuliani been promising us evidence of Biden corruption now? Each time he promises he'll reveal all in the next few days, but a few days go by and always nothing.--Percy

You also have no reason to lend them any credibility. Ah, what to do, what to do? We know what *you* do, of course. If you like it, you believe it. Facts? Who needs facts? Say what? Care to try that again?--Percy

JonF gave you the right reasons for doubting her opinion, which basically boil down to there being no way she could possibly know. Another reason is one I've already given you from Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Soleimani was a popular national figure in Iran, considered a hero especially by supporters of Teheran's hard line politics. According to a poll conducted by the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, by October 2019 Soleimani was viewed favorably by 82% of Iranians with 59% of them very favorable toward him. He was often considered the second most powerful person in Iran, behind Ayatollah Khamenei.

---

--Percy

Anyone can say they're an Iran watcher and a watcher of the Middle East in general. What does that prove, other than you're gullible.Again (and again and again), there is no possible way for her to have such information. If you think there is then please describe it for us. Do you think the Iranian government allowed the press to report these expressions of thanks to America? Do you think Kasraie hired a polling company? Do you think there was a tweetstorm within Iran where Twitter has almost no reach?Face it. Kasraie is an Iranian expatriate opposed to the current Iran government who was expressing her hopes, not her knowledge, especially since it was knowledge she couldn't possibly have, even were it true.--Percy

Let's say that Kasraie has twenty friends in Iran that she can contact about such things, and that they each have twenty friends whose political feelings they're in touch with. That's 400 people or about 0.0005% of the Iranian population. And if she's right then it's because of dumb luck, not because of knowledge. Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, back up the bus. You're moving on? If so, before doing that let us establish whether you now understand that there is no possible way she could know how a majority of the Iranian people feel about Soleimani, and that she's especially unlikely to be right in light of the poll conducted by the University of Maryland School of Public Policy that found Soleimani to be viewed favorably by 82% of Iranians. Baseless claim. All the reasons why it was the wrong thing to do have been provided to you. You've ignored them all and merely repeated (and repeated and repeated) your opinion. Do you have any facts to support your opinion? If not, stop stating it. What action? Trump played no role in the military execution of the assassination, so by "action" you must been Trump's decision to assassinate Soleimani. No, that decision was not well informed. No doubt a great deal of information was provided to Trump by our intelligence services, but had he listened and allowed himself to be informed by it then he would not have made such a poor decision. Yes it was. We have a fine military. Trump played no role in the planning. Trump's advisors tried to discourage him from choosing the Soleimani option. Yes, again, we have a fine military. Trump gets no credit for how splendidly the assassination was carried out. Of course it was impulsive. Trump was angry and chose the most drastic option instead of weighing the pros and cons of each option and choosing a measured and appropriate response given the volatility in the region. For those who haven't been following the discussion, there is no reason to waste your time watching the videos until Faith provides some answers to the questions that have been posed to her, such as why she invests any credibility in this person, and how this person could possibly know the apparently only secretly expressed opinions of the entire nation of Iran.--Percy

Trump is not a conservative. He's an opportunist. Some of the things he does align with conservatism, some don't. He doesn't have a political philosophy but a sequence of whims. Where is free trade, support for NATO, opposing dictators, strengthening our ties to democracies, lower deficits, greater individual freedom, and character? None of what you're being told is true. You're a chump being led around by the nose. If you think it's all true then try backing it up with facts. Good luck with that.--Percy

quote:

---

Naturally, we’re talking about one of the most disgusting crimes a politician can make considering the implications of such a disgusting act. However, none of these networks have provided any kind of coverage regarding this horrible case.

---

Liberal Media Shows Disgusting Bias As Coverage Of Sentenced Democrat Refused - Conservative Daily PostIt's very common for the mainstream news media to completely ignore, or report only very briefly, Democrat shenanigans. Looks to me like you imply factual support in your cited opinion pieces. I can't see any difference in how you distinguish between what you consider factual reporting and the opinion pieces you link to, any differently than I do. Message 4053
Message 4123
Message 4145
Message 4304
Message 4369
Message 4392Oh the irony. The Biden's involvement with Ukraine was what Trump justifiably called attention to, I care about the news media's double standard - when the Steele Dossier implicated Trump, all the questions are about Trump, when Trump implicated the Biden's, all the questions are about Trump.

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. Just ask the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and many other groups. Especially when one must wage asymmetric warfare wherein the side with far less brute-force military power must resort to other means including unconventional warfare methods, not unlike our colonial forces fighting against the militarily superior British forces in our Revolutionary War. If you cannot fight through more sheer brute force, then you must fight smarter.As I understand it, Soleimani's basic approach was to work with other groups with the same anti-America agenda (NOTE: not necessarily the same as anti-American). Thus he could get those other groups in many different countries to act as proxy fighters against the USA, which could also be used diplomatically to support claims that Iran was not involved -- fighting smarter, as I said. We could argue that Soleimani had some control over these groups, such that they would attack us when he needed them to, but also not attack us when it would be disadvantageous to him and to Iran. Now part of the problem of having eliminated Soleimani is that that coordinating control of those allied groups is not gone, leaving them to attack us at will.In the early 70's in college I was a foreign language major (German primarily, though I also studied 8 or 9 other languages, including Koine Greek -- I can only claim any degree of proficiency in 5 languages, though my Russian (not one of the 5) keeps surprising me). I enlisted as a computer technician (1976) which led to my earning my BS Computer Science while on active duty. My initial approach to programming languages was that they are indeed languages and I have a lot of training in learning languages -- especially in my first programming class, FORTRAN, I was the only student who read my programs for content, for what I was actually telling the computer what to do (most of the other students were trying random changes, much like your own "trial and error" nonsense).Well, what happened on active duty was that I had the opportunity to take a language course. Stupid me, instead of taking Spanish (I had married into a Mexican family where Spanish was very much alive -- I ended up making full use of OJT (on-the-job training) I chose to take an ancient Greek class. It was very informative and worth-while.Part of what the professor taught was some ancient history. One of the major outcomes of the Peloponnesian War in Greece came at the end of the war. Once "peace broke out", you had all these trained soldiers and all these weapons just lying there unused and now rendered very cheap. Now suddenly all these tiny kingdoms who could never before afford to wage war on their neighbors had not only very cheap weapons but also highly trained and experienced mercenaries who knew how to use them. What our professor presented to us was a sudden rash of bush wars fed by those left-over resources of the Peloponnesian War.So then circa 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, while everybody else was celebrating the outbreak of peace, I was bracing myself for the subsequent bush wars. And indeed, former Soviet military was outright selling their hardware on the black market, since that was the only way that they could afford to eat. So many Soviet engineers, including nuclear and nuclear weapons engineers, ended up going to wherever they could make a living and in the process made all our lives far less secure.Please note that Soleimani's primary goal was to drive the USA out of the Middle East. Because of our provocative actions which led to the Iranian missile attacks against Iraqi installations, Iraq wants us to leave. Doesn't that serve Iran's purpose to drive us out of the region? Some Iranians, maybe yes. The majority? Gimme a break!Only a minority supports Trump. So if Trump gets taken out, who would be upset?Think about Clue: killed in the bathroom by Col. Sanders with a chicken bone. The key question that you and your evil ilk avoid is this: And then what?OK, let's take this bad guy out. And then what?In every single international negotiation or something far worse, that is one of the most important three-word questions there could possibly be. And then what?So how has Trump handled and then what?He hasn't.

OK, he's a terrorist to US and a terrorist to many/most of the Iranian people, and to many others in the Middle East, and a patriot to the Islamic State. So what's your point? We have to respect a patriot of the Islamic State that wants us dead, mourn his death, in fact not kill him at all? The Nazis were patriots in Germany. You get the point.I happen to believe that there is a clear difference between good and evil that is not all that hard to figure out. We're good, all the innocent Iranians and Iraqis are good, the Islamic State is bad, Soleimani was bad. America has always operated on the ability to tell the difference, that's why we've always been a force for good in the world. Now it seems the Left is determined to blur it all to the point that there is no difference and murderers, terrorists, will be allowed to do as they please.AbE: In fact let me add here that this attempt to criminalize and impeach Trump is a symptom of this kind of thinking. He's doing good but he's been accused of doing evil. This is already destroying the foundations of America and will bring us all crashing down very soon if the Left doesnh't come to its sense. And I'm afraid it looks like that isn't going to happen.As scripture says, somewhere in Isaiah, woe to those who put good for evil and evil for good.lEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing I said implies that all circumstances are easy to figure out and America makes mistakes too, but your thinking nevertheless contributes to the blurring of good and evil.

Looking for facts in this monolith of a paragraph: Fake claim. Bald assertion, fake claim, rebutted at least several times and never responded to other than by bald assertion. This is accurate and factual. It's pretty much what the Constitution says, not verbatim, but that doesn't matter. This is not in the Constitution, but it's implicit. I think we all accept this. But it's not just threats to the government but to the nation, to democracy, and to the people. Conspiring to steal an election through foreign entanglements is, according to the writings of the founders, one of the highest crimes possible. Vacuous statement. Bald and unsupported declaration, fake claim. It has been explained to you many times why Trump was not denied due process, yet instead of addressing those explanations you still just baldly repeat this false accusation. Your inability to muster any facts in support is telling you your claim is false. Childish name calling and false objection made in the absence of any facts or rationale. Now you're upping the ante on childish name calling and fake claims. See what? You've offered only bald, unsupported declarations, fake claims, hysterical outrage and childish name calling. What is there to see? Bald, unsupported declaration, fake claim. Calling attention to Trump malfeasances is usually straightforward because he often does them out in the open, many times while making a statement before boarding a helicopter. Holding him accountable is much more difficult because impeachment is the only remedy. Hence, short of impeachment, calling attention to Trump improprieties is all that is possible. Fake claim, baseless declaration. Trump has likely done almost everything he's been accused of, nothing has been found false, but while president he cannot be brought to trial and the charges examined in a court of law. We take Trump's crimes seriously because they are supported by facts that you are unable to address. Your fellow traveler in this thread also has a very distant relationship with facts. He's also unable to maintain continuity in discussion, taking a free association approach where one thing reminds him of another that has nothing to do with the discussion. Yes, that's an appropriate analogy for your baseless opinions. Adam Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee which took testimony from a number of Trump administration witnesses who detailed Trump's scheme to coerce the Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens. You may find the report with all its evidence and many details here: The Turmp-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry ReportBecause of the supporting facts. Why don't you deal with the facts instead of issuing post after post of this empty vacuous stuff. Because of the facts. When you hide your head in the sand you can't complain because it's dark. What's going on right now is a blot on the Senate, not the Constitution. 53% of the Senate seems to be thumbing their noses at the Constitution. Many do not seem to be taking their oath to render impartial justice. What we're hearing is many complaints that they're not hearing anything new (that was pretty much guaranteed when they voted against subpoenaing Bolton and Mulvaney) and that the presentation is repetitive (House managers guilty as charged). What do you think of jurors who vote for acquittal not because the facts demand it but because they didn't get to hear from witnesses that they themselves voted not to hear, and because the facts were presented multiple times. How does one make an argument that you would have found the defendant guilty based on the facts, but you found him innocent because the facts were described too many times? How does one justify a complaint that the key witnesses did not appear when one voted against calling those witnesses?Concerning witnesses and documents, the Senate faces the same problem that the House did, that such subpoenas would be challenged and have to wend their way through the courts, which could take months. The House probed how resistant the judiciary might be to expedited hearings on the subpoenas and found it likely they would take months, and in those months Trump would be able to carry out more schemes to steal the election. Giuiani is busily working on this right now. Just yesterday he was on Fox & Friends promising to soon bring evidence that Russian interference in the 2016 election was a hoax, that it was all Ukraine, and that the Bidens had corruptly taken up to $20 million out of the Ukraine.But the Senate in the heat of an impeachment trial may be better able to influence the judiciary to move quickly so that the court cases can be completed before the election and the witnesses heard and the documentation presented.Members of the Senate must also consider that the information they say they want, namely testimony of top officials of the Trump administration and direct documentation, will not remain bottled up forever. Trump can stonewall and and keep things bottled up this year, but not forever. The proof of the corruption of this administration will gradually become public as the years go by through people finally going public and through Freedom of Information Act requests. And when Trump finally leaves office he'll be the subject of many lawsuits.Another dramatic possibility lies in our future should Trump lose the election: he'll call the election a fraud and refuse to leave office.--Percy

The few remaining sane people in the Senate, as in the House, are "thumbing their noses" at the egregeiously dishonest Adam Schiff and his House Manager cohorts who are bringing down the Constitution and America itself with their false claims. It's turning out that this political polarization is really about the confusion of good and evil on the Left which is what I was just discussing. Since the Left has no ability to tell the difference any more, and certainly doesn't care since power is all they want, not truth, not justice, I don't see much hope for America. That you have joined with them so aggressively is very sad.There's no point in discussing the particulars of this outrageous travesty of an impeachment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to assume that everyone wants to take the side of evil, as you do. That is not the case.

You consistently demonstrate that you certainly do not know the difference between good and evil. No I don't think anyone WANTS to take the side of evil, they just can't tell the difference, as you can't.