Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 258: Imminent Song

(+) Yeah! (+)

Targeting houses of the holy
---

Foolmo, how is it Trump's fault.

If you are fucking someone's wife. They beat you up and say "if you do it again I am coming to your fucking house and murdering you". Then you fuck that person's wife again, and because you are scared shitless of the threat of the guy coming to your house to you are sitting with a gun and shoot your daughter and kill her when she tries to sneak in the house after a kegger.

Do you really think the guy who beat you up for fucking his wife is at fault? I mean...

They shot a fucking plane with a radar tag for a commercial plane out of the sky as it ascended from an airport in their own capital that was only in the air because they launched missile attacks at a set time without grounding civilian air travel.

I mean... Trump is at fault? That is a pretty terrible take.

---

I do find it kinda humorous that in this analogy your Trump analogue is the only one who has broken the law.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Foolmo, how is it Trump's fault.

If you are fucking someone's wife. They beat you up and say "if you do it again I am coming to your fucking house and murdering you". Then you fuck that person's wife again, and because you are scared shitless of the threat of the guy coming to your house to you are sitting with a gun and shoot your daughter and kill her when she tries to sneak in the house after a kegger.

Do you really think the guy who beat you up for fucking his wife is at fault? I mean...

They shot a fucking plane with a radar tag for a commercial plane out of the sky as it ascended from an airport in their own capital that was only in the air because they launched missile attacks at a set time without grounding civilian air travel.

I mean... Trump is at fault? That is a pretty terrible take.

Yes, it's partially his fault. Any given consequence of escalating towards war is unpredictable, but it is predictable that you're increasing the risk of more casualties.

---

xp1337 posted...

I do find it kinda humorous that in this analogy your Trump analogue is the only one who has broken the law.

I guess if murder isn't breaking the law...

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yes, it's partially his fault. Any given consequence of escalating towards war is unpredictable, but it is predictable that you're increasing the risk of more casualties.

Luckily, you aren't a judge! I highly doubt any judge is gonna say an issue between two parties where one of the parties causes injury to a third party randomly is the fault of the other non-involved party.

"Hey, this dude punched me so I punched him back then he went and hit a bystander with a bat! I am totally partially at fault for you know this dude clubbing some random bystander with a bat!". Lmfao get the hell out of here with that bullshit.

---

God damnit I typo'd my post and ruined it

I meant to say "the blood is on Iran's hands, it's on Trump's hands, and indeed it's on your hands"

---

In a lot of states that situation presumably falls under Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground! Hell, it probably flies as self-defense in an alarming majority of the country.

The sincere belief that one is threatened regardless of the reality enabling someone to get away with what is clearly murder is uh... distressingly common in this country? Did you sleep through the Trayvon Martin case?

---

xp1337 posted...

In a lot of states that situation presumably falls under Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground! Hell, it probably flies as self-defense in an alarming majority of the country.

The sincere belief that one is threatened regardless of the reality enabling someone to get away with what is clearly murder is uh... distressingly common in this country? Did you sleep through the Trayvon Martin case?

I guess in your mind you somehow assumed the daughter of the person owning the house didn't live there also. So, I will give you a pass. I am trying to paint the picture of your own teenage daughter sneaking in to the home she lives to not alert the suspicion of what would be unapproving parents.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Do you really think the guy who beat you up for fucking his wife is at fault? I mean...

In this analogy, you have each fucked each other's wives 17 times before and each time it happened, you both accidentally shot between 1 and 6000 innocent people/dogs/squirrels who happened to walk near your front doors

So yes I think it's his fucking fault

---

But to be fair, to be a closer analogy, it should be his daughter opens the unlocked door and says "Dad, you home?" And he shoots her. Because that probably more properly paints the picture of how incompetent shooting a commercial airliner that just ascended from your own capitals airport with a radar tag identifying it is after you didn't even ground flights when doing a planned timed missile attack in said airspace.

---

PSA to literally everyone on b8 but especially the dumb people: Don't make analogies. Just don't. You're not good at it and it won't help you. There's a reason the SATs got rid of them.


---

Taken to its logical conclusion the blame game would end up going around the world and it'd e everyone's fault. Trump would go back to Obama which would also go to Bush and so on. Including their voters, so if you voted for Obama back in 2012 you're at fault too. Hell, we'd be at fault for 9/11. Similarly you'd have the opposing sides all at fault too (pick your Middle East county) and work that butterfly effect backwards to who knows how long. Everyone did everything wrong.

Which is why nobody really uses blame and fault like this. Who pulled the trigger, did it happen of their own will, cool, done. These two aspects can be debated depending on the specifics but there's not much debate here, they just fucked up, desperately tried to cover it up, and failed.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

PSA to literally everyone on b8 but especially the dumb people: Don't make analogies. Just don't. You're not good at it and it won't help you. There's a reason the SATs got rid of them.

Yeah, there probably isn't an analogy that covers the massive amount of incompetence Iran showed.

Hell, then they tried to cover it up. Bulldozed the wreckage of the site to make it impossible to investigate. Denied the attack. After video evidence came out, said they did it.

But, also couldn't do that without lying and placing blame on America. Said the plane turned back to the airport and when it did it was at the trajectory and size of a missile. Which made them think it was a "terrorist American" plane which were abuzz in their airspace. Except we know it didn't turn back until after it was hit by a missile just to completely break that narrative to pieces from the start.


---

Kinglicious posted...

Taken to its logical conclusion the blame game would end up going around the world and it'd e everyone's fault. Trump would go back to Obama which would also go to Bush and so on. Including their voters, so if you voted for Obama back in 2012 you're at fault too. Hell, we'd be at fault for 9/11. Similarly you'd have the opposing sides all at fault too (pick your Middle East county) and work that butterfly effect backwards to who knows how long. Everyone did everything wrong.

Which is why nobody really uses blame and fault like this. Who pulled the trigger, did it happen of their own will, cool, done. These two aspects can be debated depending on the specifics but there's not much debate here, they just fucked up, desperately tried to cover it up, and failed.

Iran retaliating with missiles was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the Soleimani strike. It doesn't really make sense to say deaths would have counted if the missiles had hit American soldiers or Iraqi civilians but don't count because they accidentally hit Canadian passengers.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Iran retaliating with missiles was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the Soleimani strike. It doesn't really make sense to say they would have counted if they had hit American soldiers or Iraqi civilians but don't count because they accidentally hit Canadian passengers.

Eliminating a terrorist who killed hundreds of Americans was a logical consequence.

What does Iran retaliating with missiles have to do with shooting down a civilian airliner with a surface to air missile? It's not like it's a missile that was shot at Iraq that accidentally hit it.

---

Presumably they mistook it for us responding to their missile strike and fired on it.

Trying to link the blame to just one party here doesn't really work IMO. Iran most directly is at fault for... you know... firing on it in the first place, but it is undeniable that had things not been escalated dramatically previously by the Administration that situation never arises in the first place.

You can, of course, continue this chain back almost indefinitely. "Would the escalation have happened if the embassy wasn't stormed? What if we didn't try to prop up the shah? What if Europe didn't incompetently just carve up the map drawing borders in the Middle East during imperialism and make it even more of a disaster?" etc etc

---

xp1337 posted...

Presumably they mistook it for us responding to their missile strike and fired on it.

Trying to link the blame to just one party here doesn't really work IMO. Iran most directly is at fault for... you know... firing on it in the first place, but it is undeniable that had things not been escalated dramatically previously by the Administration that situation never arises in the first place.

You can, of course, continue this chain back almost indefinitely. "Would the escalation have happened if the embassy wasn't stormed? What if we didn't try to prop up the shah? What if Europe didn't incompetently just carve up the map drawing borders in the Middle East during imperialism and make it even more of a disaster?" etc etc

And again. The plane was ascending from their airport and has a radar tag. How can you mistake that for an attack? It is gross negligence and incompetence. Which Iran is fully to blame.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Iran retaliating with missiles was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the Soleimani strike. It doesn't really make sense to say deaths would have counted if the missiles had hit American soldiers or Iraqi civilians but don't count because they accidentally hit Canadian passengers.

and us attacking them was an entirely foreseeable consequence of continuously provoking us and killing an american without caring about it. this back and forth can continue for a long time and solely exists to dilute the question of "who's at fault?"

i wouldn't say that you're to blame for the revenge held against you. it might be justifiable but as long as we're talking about a scenario where the other party has free will to decide how they want to act, you're solely to blame for your actions. like would i blame the soldier who pulled it? sure. similarly his free will is very limited due to his responsibilities to the government, his actions are their actions.

---

Ignoring tertiary consequences & effects of acts of war is insane.

Yes you can trail the blame game out.................. go ahead? Understanding a chain of causes is important, and just because you find a precursor doesn't mean you suddenly absolved what came after, the blame doesn't just pass up the chain, it's accumulated down.

---

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than what GMUN just said IMO, but more or less that. I was writing up a similar response but gave up partway through because "what's the point?"

---

Yes, there isn't a fixed amount of blame to go around. Iran is entirely at fault, but that doesn't stop Trump from being partially at fault.

---

Russia is at fault for supplying them with the SAMs.

---

I just want to point out that Iran's response to the world to show their defiance to the American Terrorists was 200 civilian deaths (over a hundred which were their own) and zero enemy casualties.

---

Well I'm glad you guys have infinite blame. Some of us can't afford it.

---

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1215834911015428096?s=21

god hes such a fucking piece of shit

---

Middle East intervention isnt about oil they say
---

Kinglicious posted...

Taken to its logical conclusion the blame game would end up going around the world and it'd e everyone's fault. Trump would go back to Obama which would also go to Bush and so on. Including their voters, so if you voted for Obama back in 2012 you're at fault too. Hell, we'd be at fault for 9/11. Similarly you'd have the opposing sides all at fault too (pick your Middle East county) and work that butterfly effect backwards to who knows how long. Everyone did everything wrong.

I think extending it to the voters is a bit complicated.

Like...in 2012 yes, people knew that Obama used drone strikes, did not prosecute soldiers who had committed war crimes, did not close Guantanamo Bay, was using unlimited surveillance tactics authorized by the patriot act etc. This was a potential weak point and a good opponent could have run on a platform of more peace and less spying on its own citizens. But Romney...didn't try? He didn't challenge Obama on any of these things, didn't bring them up in the debates, and when drone strikes were brought up he expressed enthusiasm for them.

Like...this article from 2012 describes the debate between Obama and Romney as "hawk vs hawk":

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mitt-romney-vs-barack-obama-hawk-vs-hawk

I think it's fair to blame Bush voters in 2004. He had started two wars at that point and it was already kind-of clear that there were no WMDs. It's obvious who to vote for in 2004 if you want less war. It's not obvious who to vote for in 2012 if you want less war since they both ran on similar platforms.

---

Please think about this for even 1 second the next time you support ANY kind of war action (including sanctions, yes). You support the chaos knowing what the result will be. The blood is on your hands and on Trump's hands and indeed on your hands.

Blood is on the hands of literally every human on planet Earth save a few self-sustaining native tribes. At least us neocons are honest about it.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1215834911015428096?s=21

god hes such a fucking piece of shit

Okay, hold on, I have to correct one thing there. "They've been fighting over this border for a thousand years".

That whole region (both sides of the border) was controlled by the Ottoman Empire continuously from 1520-1914. There was no border. None.

Here's the map in 1520:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#/media/File:Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1520.jpg

Here's the map in 1913 (right before WWI)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#/media/File:Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1913.jpg

The Ottaman Empire was defeated during World War 1 (and broken into pieces by France and Britain...not into sensible countries based on shared languages, but literally into regions where France wanted oil fields (basically Syria) and regions where Britain wanted to expand trains (basically Iraq)). This is why you have ethnic groups like the Kurds with their own language just spread across a couple countries, because the borders were not chosen to make sense for the people living there, they were chosen because the British and French empires wanted to make more $$$$. (This is actually one of the times in history America was clearly the good guy--America at the end of WWI was arguing that people in the middle east should govern themselves, and Britain and France popped on their monocles, busted out their evil villain laughs "ohohoho, govern themselves? Nonsense. Look at all this money we can make!!!" And they outvoted America).

So...yeah, it's not a thousand years, it's like...92 years.

---

xp1337 posted...

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than what GMUN just said IMO, but more or less that. I was writing up a similar response but gave up partway through because "what's the point?"

Certainly I too have the same kind of "what's the point" factor which tends to push me for shorter posts but yes of course simplified. I kinda just scrapped another response now under the same assessment!

---

---

I have no ability to determine if anything she is quoted as saying is true or false. No matter how absurd it seems like something she might have actually said.

---

metroid composite posted...

So...yeah, it's not a thousand years, it's like...92 years.

There are certainly still territorial disputes within empires. I'd argue that there have been tribal/sectarian conflicts in that region since the Persian empire fell.

---

Having considered this discussion of fault, I have decided that fault must be apportioned as follows:

1. Nancy Pelosi 1% (for impeaching Trump, which increases tension)
2. The left in the House 4% (for pressuring Nancy to impeach)
3. Iran 6% (for shooting down the plane)
4. France 8% (for wanting imperialism post-WWI)
5. Britain 9% (for enabling France at Versailles and being imperialist)
6. Woodrow Wilson 10% (for being an ineffective negotiator at Versailles)
7. Barack Obama 11% (for imposing Obamacare on the American people)
8. Hillary Clinton 51% (for being a bad negotiator throughout her 30 years in public life, utterly failing to bring about peace in the Middle East).

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

There are certainly still territorial disputes within empires. I'd argue that there have been tribal/sectarian conflicts in that region since the Persian empire fell.

And you could also say that there was conflict and territorial disputes in Europe since the fall of the Roman empire all the way up through the 20th century. Overly vague descriptions really aren't that helpful. (In fact Europe's borders were a lot less stable from 1520-1914 than the Ottoman Empire's. Yeah, that's right, in pre-world war 1 history arguably the middle east was "more peaceful" than Europe).

Either way, the modern situation with the Kurds was pretty explicitly caused by the SykesPicot Agreement at the end of World War I (less than a hundred years ago).

This isn't to say that Empires are idyllic--the purpose of an empire is to conquer more territory so you can tax it and make the seat of the empire richer. Being a taxed province in an empire tends to be somewhat shitty, and is the kind of thing that led to the American revolution against the British Empire. Obviously there was discontent in the Ottoman Empire (which is how Lawrence of Arabia got the Arabs to revolt against the Empire).

But after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the borders that were drawn up by the SykesPicot Agreement sucked really bad, because they were not drawn for the people living there. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is the cause of most of the problems in the middle east today. It's the cause of instability in Syria and Iraq. The Sykes-Picot Agreement pretty directly led to the rise of Saudi Arabia as it established a very weak Arabia state which the Saudis promptly conquered. (As I understand it the borders of Saudi Arabia aren't too much of an issue, but they were and are religious extremists and started spreading a more radical version of Islam).

Admittedly, the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not create Iran. That's literally just Persia. They changed their name in World War 2 to remind Hitler that they are white (Iranian and Aryan are words with a common origin).

---

I'd find it more believable if it didn't have BernieSanders.com on it.

---

Fun fact: Impeachment support is now at an all time high on 538 at 50.2%.

Since he was formally impeached, Republican support has risen over 4% and and independent over 2.5%.

But you're right, impeachment was a guaranteed win for Trump and now he's gonna win the electoral college by 200 votes.

---

Wow, I cant believe Trump pulled the imminent attack on four embassies justification out of his ass!

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1215989643528822784?s=2

Add it to the articles IMO

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Fun fact: Impeachment support is now at an all time high on 538 at 50.2%.

Since he was formally impeached, Republican support has risen over 4% and and independent over 2.5%.

But you're right, impeachment was a guaranteed win for Trump and now he's gonna win the electoral college by 200 votes.

you don't think that will shift at all after full exoneration by the senate?

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

you don't think that will shift at all after full exoneration by the senate?

Not if its an essentially party-line vote (which is not a full exoneration)

---

Tbh I think Trump better pray Bernie isn't his opponent or we get a campaign about healthcare and war. Like those odds!

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah, there probably isn't an analogy that covers the massive amount of incompetence Iran showed.

It was like Trump making a perfect phone call

There, easy. What I'm saying is that I can make analogies, but you definitely can't.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I just want to point out that Iran's response to the world to show their defiance to the American Terrorists was 200 civilian deaths (over a hundred which were their own) and zero enemy casualties.

Reminds me of how America self-destructed its economy of 300 million people and killed 10000 of its own troops to make up for 3500 civilian deaths.

I'm starting to think this war thing isn't so glamorous... actually nah I'll wait until a democrat is in office to complain. FUCK YEAH TRUMP'S MILITARY! 20 SUICIDES A DAY! LET'S MAKE IT 30!!!!!!!!!

Oops I forgot my rule not to respond to b8 Giuliani.

---

metroid composite posted...

I think extending it to the voters is a bit complicated.

It's complicated but so is quantum mechanics. But both are doable and EXTREMELY important to understand, so what kind of excuse is this?

But we're not even talking about the complicated parts. Where you might support free college tuition, but that means a much payroll tax, which creates a welfare ceiling for a lot of poor kids, so they are forced to go into the military, which enables causes higher military engagement worldwide, etc. We're talking about something much simpler.

If you support, ignore, or don't explicitly denounce the warmongering of your voting candidate, then you absolutely share some blame for war. You are part of the popular support that is required for any democratic government to wage war. If you voted for Obama super reluctantly because at least he's better than Romney, that's more complicated sure. But if you voted for Bush/Obama because you liked them, you share the blame. If you don't throw up a bit every time you think about Obama's peace prize, you share the blame. If you ignore decades of history in order to defend Trump's escalation of war, you share the blame. If you sing about how Hillary should've won because Trump stoked war, you share the blame. These are not complicated situations.


---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Blood is on the hands of literally every human on planet Earth save a few self-sustaining native tribes. At least us neocons are honest about it.

You're not honest about it. Neocons are the absolutely biggest wussies about it ever. "Oh, everyone supports the global society which leads to war, so I'm not doing anything special." So pathetically weak.

Admit to yourself and to us right now that the world would be a more peaceful place without you. There are people trying to improve things and climb out of this hole and you're not one of them. That's what I mean by blood on your hands. Can you admit that? Let's see your honesty.

---

Meanwhile in plane news, Iran took back their claim that the plane had changed direction too.

So we've gone from...

Malfunction
Technical error, either due plane or pilot
Air collision
Engine malfunction
(No black box, bulldozing, we did nothing)
Okay we did it BUT the plane did a sharp turn
Okay we did it

Next step in this admission is that they were incredibly irresponsible to allow commercial flights while in that state.

And after that i look forward to seeing it be a rogue soldier.
Then his division.
Then a general.

Edit:
Okay i should've kept reading this Times article, we already hit that part. Now it's "jamming" and a general leading air space units has accepted fault. So we skipped the individual and went to the general at least. So next step after that is there was no jamming but at this point we're pretty high up the chain.

Mr. Hajizadeh, the Iranian official who accepted responsibility for the missile strike, said the plane had been misidentified as a cruise missile and was shot down with a short-range missile that exploded near the plane.

He said the Iranian missile operator had acted independently because of jamming. Asked during his address why Iranian airspace was not shut to commercial air traffic amid the attacks, Mr. Hajizadeh had no clear answer.

I wish I was dead, Mr. Hajizadeh was quoted as saying by local news outlets. I accept all responsibility for this incident.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

If you sing about how Hillary should've won because Trump stoked war, you share the blame.

what if I voted for hillary because at least she wasn't donald fucking trump but think war is bad

am i still a blood-soaked murderer or am i allowed to share your incredibly exclusive moral high ground

---

Tbh I like this foolmo.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

Admit to yourself and to us right now that the world would be a more peaceful place without you. There are people trying to improve things and climb out of this hole and you're not one of them. That's what I mean by blood on your hands. Can you admit that? Let's see your honesty.

The world would be a more peaceful place if you define peace as "less war between nations," sure. But I think the 100 million+ people who died from Communist regimes' internal reforms would disagree.

---