Iran and friends

In reference to Iran I found this article, kinda makes me sad. It's about pre Islamic Revolution culture in Iran.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5103795/Fascinating-photos-Iran-1979-revolution.html

And then this little tidbit to tickle the imagination; not sure if it's a big deal or not but it's interesting. About a fringe Iranian Revolutionary movement Trump had sought advice from.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sought-advice-iran-from-officials-linked-ex-terror-group-2020-1

Then there's this article that came out recently that everyone will be expected to forget about; The UN unable to verify attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities came from Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-un-idUSKBN1YE2UD

Well, that's interesting.

Other than paid speaking engagements to give them credibility, I wonder if the US is enabling them in other ways.

Sock of free-gulls.

It's a trap!!

I'm not sure but would be cool to find out. On the other hand there's nothing wrong with getting information from someone even if you don't agree with their groups motives. The enemy of my enemy is my friend sometimes. Then again there's all those other Marxists we've helped out.......

Today in the news no World War III yet and that's good. Found out the Ukrainian plane was hit by a missile.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian-airplane-shot-down-by-mistake-by-iranian-anti-aircraft-missile-pentagon-officials-believe

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html

Since there are so many missiles flying around these days it would be nice to know who's it was, and more importantly who fired it.
I knew a guy who had been a gang member in LA back in day and he told me about drive by shootings. The trick was two shooters in the car, both using the same ammunition. One shooter would snipe the targeted individual ( the guy they wanted to hit ) the other would spray the crowd. In this way it would be more difficult for law enforcement to figure out who the perpetrators were because they wouldn't know who was targeted. Of course initially they thought it was just random violence.
That reminds me of these incidents from a while back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_Jr.
The latter of course was only with a few friends.
It would be interesting to find out if there were any VIPs on the Ukrainian flight or possibly student leaders from the recent protests.

Here's one from the BBC, video of government crackdown in Iran
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50562584?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c34k51rkynrt/iran-protests&link_location=live-reporting-story

sorry that url is so long, but it's the BBC's fault

"Heat of the impeachment"

That only works if Nancy pushes the Articles to Mitch.

I'm pretty sure she won't forget and Mr Trump brought the subject up again last night at a rally.

Again... and I know (as you've said) you don't watch the news... The Impeachment already happened.

It is the Senate trial... or impeachment trial that remains pending.

Granted the media attention on the subject of Trump's historic Impeachment continues as does Trump's tantrums, so the "heat of the impeachment" is a pretty accurate phrase.

I realize facts are hard for you to grasp, but they are what they are.

You are welcome for the clarification.

The Islamic State (IS) group has welcomed the death of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force.

In a statement, it described the general's demise as an act of divine intervention that benefitted jihadists.

From ISIS to Trump

That's correct. ISIS is a Sunni apocalyptic group formed by Iraqis after they were ousted from power during the Second Gulf War in favor of Shi'ites majority. The officer corps of the Iraq Army was made up of Sunnis who joined ISIS with a significant number of their men and weaponry.

I'm sorry but that is not an accurate description of how ISIS formed, when it was formed, nor what ISIS is.

You want another war that you can't / won't win and the only outcome will be that Radical Islam's determination to destroy "The Great Satan" will become even more entrenched than it is already.

Fanatics don't mind dying. They truly believe they will go to Paradise. If you plant a missile through an Islamic leader's lounge window while he's watching football on the TV, he firmly believes that he'll be knocking off virgins in heaven before his head hits the ceiling.

They aren't scared of dying.

On the other hand, there comes a point where Americans get fed up with seeing flag draped coffins coming back from the Middle East. Again.

If you kill a thousand Iranians and they kill ten Americans, US public opinion doesn't give a damn about the Iranians, but they sure get angry about the ten Americans.

You can start another war - please don't ask Britain to join in this time - and very soon you'll be bogged down in a conflict where the enemy don't come out to fight in a conventional sense, which would suit you. They will be sneaky, underhand and cunning. They'll fight a guerilla war which won't suit you and they'll ignore their own losses while watching Americans get all torn up about the casualties you're taking.

A stalemate suits them right down to the ground.

It's a very simple equation:

If you don't win, you lose.
If they don't lose, they win.

Do yourselves a favour. Try diplomacy.