Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani has warned of what he described as a possible conspiracy to frame Iran for a major terrorist incident.
that’s why I have no doubt that any attack in the US will be done by the US.
my point being, that by being that sloppy and untrustworthy, even is Iran did commit an attack, everyone will believe it was the US. not saying they will. just that the US government is fucked either way
Honestly that might be something that could actually incite real rebellion by state governments and another civil war - the federal government carrying out a false flag so ham-handedly that it’s brutally fucking obvious that it’s a false flag.
like he cares. unless the military/police turns on him, he can quell any rebellion and keep the grift going.
tf do you think was the point of militarizing the police, turning ICE into the 4th largest military in America, and building massive concentration camps?
Is there a geographical reason to target California? Because, if anything, I imagine Texas would be the bigger target. California opposes Trump, Texas does not. Why would Iran want to target the enemy of its own enemy?
do you think there are “good"states and"bad states”?
they are all the same, we started a war, and attacked civilian centers, we set the terms of engagement. random Californians are targets thanks to trump
Random Californians were put at risk thanks to Trump, obviously. I wouldn’t dare argue otherwise. My point has more to do with what I imagine the strategy of a state like Iran would be. I think your point stands, if the offensive were coming from China. Do you think Iran believes they’d stand a chance at accomplishing anything via an assault on US soil? If it were to happen at all, which I already believe to be quite unlikely, then I can only really accept it would happen with political precision. Iran would, if they were smart, try not to give Californians a reason to change their position on the war.
do you think there are “good"states and"bad states”?
Yeah, I do. There are states that are gerrymandered to hell, propagandized to hell, and serve the interests of a very small and damaging minority. That minority includes Trump and his enablers. You alternatively have the equally shit alternative states, and yeah… I picked that side.
in WW2, was there a distinction on which parts of Germany were more or less in favour of Hitler? When we carpet bombed Cambodia, did we looked into the regional polls? when we bombed Teheran, do they look at which neighbours and school girls were more or less in favour of the regime? When we endorsed a genocide in Gaza, did we ask to only target certain neighbours based on polls?
This “In hope they spare the blue states” is such an unimaginably entitled statement. Sounds like “But I am one of the good guys!!!”
No, the US has a long imperialist career of wars of aggressions and war crimes. You have personally benefited from them by having low fuel costs, you are not innocent, you might not have consented to this, but you are part of it, your taxes paid for it. If anything the US is the nation that need to be liberated.
in WW2, was there a distinction on which parts of Germany were more or less in favour of Hitler?
In WW2, the war was explicit and you could be prosecuted for protest in Germany. There’s little reason at all to account for the political climate aside from the states official stance.
When we carpet bombed Cambodia, did we looked into the regional polls? when we bombed Teheran, do they look at which neighbours and school girls were more or less in favour of the regime? When we endorsed a genocide in Gaza, did we ask to only target certain neighbours based on polls?
We as a militaristic superpower similarly have zero need for as much. We impose by domination, which I’m literally arguing Iran can’t do.
This “In hope they spare the blue states” is such an unimaginably entitled statement. Sounds like “But I am one of the good guys!!!”
I hear you, it sounds wishful and entitled. Yet, my point has nothing to do with how I perceive myself and whether that’s any “good” or not. My point was that Iran would most likely want to consider how best to approach such an attack. I can’t help but feel it would behoove them to not unite the US by making war with Iran something Texas and California agree on.
Iran has already made public statements to include the likes of “we are not at war with the American people.” I interpret that to mean they understand Trump (et al) as the enemy, not the American people. Therefore, I again state with conviction, I can not see a single scenario where the political climate of a state is not considered prior to any attack. This is political and if they were going to attack at all — it’ll be somewhere alined with their enemy (who they themselves said was not the American people). Sorry to say, but that’s not California. My point was merely that Texas would make more sense than California… not that any of this makes much sense in the first place.
No, the US has a long imperialist career of wars of aggressions and war crimes. You have personally benefited from them by having low fuel costs, you are not innocent, you might not have consented to this, but you are part of it, your taxes paid for it. If anything the US is the nation that need to be liberated.
Is this a different subject? I don’t really understand why this was the closing argument.
I doubt Iran will conduct an attack on US soil, only hopes to end this is for Trump to lose the midterms, which he will cheat. Any Iranian attack before the midterms will galvanize the nation, or give Trump more political capital to mess the election due to a crisis. Any attack will likely be an American false flag.
my finishing statement is that no American is innocent. even the blue liberals. Both parties had a long history of war crimes and atrocities. so a Democrat state isn’t ‘one of the good ones’. It is something we need to fix, it is unbelievable that almost every US president has war crimes listed on their wiki, regardless of party lines. If you want to fix it make sure you vote in the primaries to ensure a progressive who doesn’t accept lobbying money (especially AIPAC/Military industrial complex) wins.
not to put an extra tin foil on my tin foil hat.
but now, given the US government, even if Iran did perpetrate a 9/11 style attack. I will assume it was a false flag attack by the US.
It’s not tin foil hatty.
Kash fucking Patel was told to gut the team at the FBI responsible for identifying and tracking threats originating from Iran right before we started shooting things at them. That’s as close to a false-flag setup as you can get without actually just doing it yourself.
that’s why I have no doubt that any attack in the US will be done by the US.
my point being, that by being that sloppy and untrustworthy, even is Iran did commit an attack, everyone will believe it was the US. not saying they will. just that the US government is fucked either way
Honestly that might be something that could actually incite real rebellion by state governments and another civil war - the federal government carrying out a false flag so ham-handedly that it’s brutally fucking obvious that it’s a false flag.
unless it’s near the midterms, and they will be cancelled for some “national security”/ “emergency crisis” reason or bullshit.
Which, again, could incite actual rebellion. That’s never been done. Even during either world war. Even during the Civil War.
like he cares. unless the military/police turns on him, he can quell any rebellion and keep the grift going.
tf do you think was the point of militarizing the police, turning ICE into the 4th largest military in America, and building massive concentration camps?
Is there a geographical reason to target California? Because, if anything, I imagine Texas would be the bigger target. California opposes Trump, Texas does not. Why would Iran want to target the enemy of its own enemy?
do you think there are “good"states and"bad states”?
they are all the same, we started a war, and attacked civilian centers, we set the terms of engagement. random Californians are targets thanks to trump
Random Californians were put at risk thanks to Trump, obviously. I wouldn’t dare argue otherwise. My point has more to do with what I imagine the strategy of a state like Iran would be. I think your point stands, if the offensive were coming from China. Do you think Iran believes they’d stand a chance at accomplishing anything via an assault on US soil? If it were to happen at all, which I already believe to be quite unlikely, then I can only really accept it would happen with political precision. Iran would, if they were smart, try not to give Californians a reason to change their position on the war.
Yeah, I do. There are states that are gerrymandered to hell, propagandized to hell, and serve the interests of a very small and damaging minority. That minority includes Trump and his enablers. You alternatively have the equally shit alternative states, and yeah… I picked that side.
in WW2, was there a distinction on which parts of Germany were more or less in favour of Hitler? When we carpet bombed Cambodia, did we looked into the regional polls? when we bombed Teheran, do they look at which neighbours and school girls were more or less in favour of the regime? When we endorsed a genocide in Gaza, did we ask to only target certain neighbours based on polls?
This “In hope they spare the blue states” is such an unimaginably entitled statement. Sounds like “But I am one of the good guys!!!”
No, the US has a long imperialist career of wars of aggressions and war crimes. You have personally benefited from them by having low fuel costs, you are not innocent, you might not have consented to this, but you are part of it, your taxes paid for it. If anything the US is the nation that need to be liberated.
In WW2, the war was explicit and you could be prosecuted for protest in Germany. There’s little reason at all to account for the political climate aside from the states official stance.
We as a militaristic superpower similarly have zero need for as much. We impose by domination, which I’m literally arguing Iran can’t do.
I hear you, it sounds wishful and entitled. Yet, my point has nothing to do with how I perceive myself and whether that’s any “good” or not. My point was that Iran would most likely want to consider how best to approach such an attack. I can’t help but feel it would behoove them to not unite the US by making war with Iran something Texas and California agree on.
Iran has already made public statements to include the likes of “we are not at war with the American people.” I interpret that to mean they understand Trump (et al) as the enemy, not the American people. Therefore, I again state with conviction, I can not see a single scenario where the political climate of a state is not considered prior to any attack. This is political and if they were going to attack at all — it’ll be somewhere alined with their enemy (who they themselves said was not the American people). Sorry to say, but that’s not California. My point was merely that Texas would make more sense than California… not that any of this makes much sense in the first place.
Is this a different subject? I don’t really understand why this was the closing argument.
I doubt Iran will conduct an attack on US soil, only hopes to end this is for Trump to lose the midterms, which he will cheat. Any Iranian attack before the midterms will galvanize the nation, or give Trump more political capital to mess the election due to a crisis. Any attack will likely be an American false flag.
my finishing statement is that no American is innocent. even the blue liberals. Both parties had a long history of war crimes and atrocities. so a Democrat state isn’t ‘one of the good ones’. It is something we need to fix, it is unbelievable that almost every US president has war crimes listed on their wiki, regardless of party lines. If you want to fix it make sure you vote in the primaries to ensure a progressive who doesn’t accept lobbying money (especially AIPAC/Military industrial complex) wins.