Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Feb 17 01:10:36 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / iran airplane 3
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 12:15:43
"The timing if this discussion is funny since an airliner just dumped fuel over a school after declaring an emergency and returning to LAX for an emergency landing soon after takeoff."


Lol right? I dont always dump fuel, but when i do, i prefer low altitude dumps over schoolyards.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 12:21:35
Also lol @ seb.

You can see from the wreckage... the airplane was tumbling so bad that its forward hull ended up behind the fire for a time and was coated in ash. Ultimately abnormal aero loads and missile damage tore the entire front fuselage roof off, which landed separately from the rest of the wreckage.

Why are you never right? I told you on night 1 that such a fire could only result from a broken and tumbling plane.

You need to fall silent and listen to your wiser betters, seb.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 15 13:26:13
Seb is that guy on 9/11 who saw the second plane hit the Twin Towers and exclaim "well it doesnt LOOK like a coincidence, but since we dont know for certain...mechanical failure is entirely possible."

Like, run the odds on this sort of stuff bro. Educated speculation is a thing.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 13:31:17
Or the guys that said, look at all the Saudi nationals attacking us. Its probably Iraq or Afghanistan behind the attacks.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 15 14:09:21
You're really hoping to not have to concede this one, arent you.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 15 14:13:56
For the record, Afghanistan was invaded because its non-recognized rulers refused to hand over Osama bin Laden (aka guy behind 9/11) and Iraq was invaded because Saddam was a bad hombre with a shitton of oil to exploit.

Which is a bit different from suggesting that a plane blowing up in Tehran within hours of missiles flying between US and Iranian positions probably isn't a coincidence.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 14:24:52
Ruggy
You know that is BS. Someone had to be invaded, but it was not going to be Saudi Arabia.

So Afghanistan, then Iraq. Because why not. Since we can invent any reason we like, we can invade anyone we like.

But I digress. I was bringing this up as a comment to your 9-11 analogy.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 15 14:51:14
Seb, Listen at the end of the day I suppose we will view this how we Will view this.

You can reference the US mistakes...however the US has an extensive amount of examples to see what we are good at and what we are not.

In this case our evidence of Irans formal attack of the US while they accurately attacked a local shed.While also shooting down a civilian plane.

At the time of the Iraq war Iraq not only had a better funded and staffed military but had the most advanced rockets in the region iirc.

Now keep in mind the first thing the US would do would be to disable Irans ability to counter as much as plausible.

Which is much more difficult to do with hezzbollah.

jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 15:03:56
Habebe
You do realize that Hezbollah gets its advanced training from Iranians, right?

It seems much more difficult to you because Israel is acutely aware of Hezbolla's potential and you are blindingly oblivious to Iran's.

There is a reason Israel is trying to draw such a firm red line in terms of Iranian deployment in Syria.

It really, really, really does not want to face Iran at its frontier.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 15:15:22
I checked for fun. Iran's military spending is about the same as Israel's. It increased considerably after 2003 and reached parity in 2007.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 16:00:24
Lol baghdad jergul is at least consistent.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 16:51:05
Baghdad Sam you mean.

Its like with the B-52. A great way of delivering precision gravity bombs if you can get within 30 miles or so of target. Otherwise, you need to use 24 tomahawks to get the same effect.

Iran's missile arsenal becomes vastly more cost effective if it can use 150 km range precision missiles instead of relying on 1500 km range precision missiles.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 16:56:28
For 70 years soviet bloc muslums have tried to fight western armies. For 70 years they have been slaughtered.

But according to jergul this time will be different!
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 15 17:13:58
Well, Im not a fan of Israel but they have a military record that is top notch....ill look up online the on paper info but remember on paper France and Nazi Germany were about equal....real world results must be taken into account.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 17:17:51
Bagdhad Sam
Its still all about deterence and no one has indicated in the slightest that Iran could win a conventional conflict.

A signficiant arsenal in Western Syria would extend the Mexican stand-off thing Hezb and Israel have going to include a lot more Iranian interests.

Israel really, really, really does not want that to happen. It likes its operational freedom too much.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 17:22:11
Look up what happened last time (or every time) Israel has faced Hezbollah. An Iranian trained and sponsored group.

The best Qud forces operation to review would be the rescue of that Russian pilot.

An on the fly operation with 0 pre-planning behind enemy lines. 0 casualties. Recovered the pilot and recked the rebels that tried to interfer.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 17:26:05
Habebe
Iran does not have much of a navy and a very small airforce. Yet spends as much on the Military (in real dollar equivalents) as Israel.

What do you think its getting? How many precision missiles do you think you can get for the price of an f-35?
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 15 17:35:24
I guess this is what "sober analysis" looks like. Singing the praises of the military competence and capabilities of the world's worst state actors (Russia, Iran, Syria etc.) while insisting that Western powers are completely incapable of countering them.

The sobriety of it all really is overwhelming.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 15 17:45:05
Jergul, Irans formal military mostly protects the border, the republican Guard ( still a formal.military but different)is a different beast as is Hezbollah.

https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_Israel_vs_Iran
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 17:55:50
Ruggy
Grow balls, Accept significant casualties. Win wars.

Its simple, stupid.

A little deterence gives a lot of leverage until that happens.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 17:58:34
Lol@baghdad jergul
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 18:00:16
Any missiles imaginary deployed in Western Syria would be under the auspices of Qud forces. Their variant of Expeditionary forces. Its part of the Revolutionary Guard.+
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 18:00:46
Baghdad Sammy
Hush. Adults are talking.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 18:04:45
Also, dumbbell, I just said that Israel is fiercly defending its red line by signaling strongly and kinetically that it does not accept Iranian forces in Syria.

It fired missiles at the T-4 base yesterday for God's sake.

I am just providing context as to why Israel cares.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:11:24
jergul,

Do we look like we're interested in taking our tactical cues from Soviet commanders at Stalingrad? Imperial soldiers are not cannon fodder, and do not need to be to win wars. THAT's why we run the world.

jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 18:14:42
Ruggy
Thats fine. But the price you pay is facing deterence that can be heavily leveraged.

At least stop whining about it. The choice is yours.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:17:24
jergul,

Your overconfidence in Soviet+ tech is your weakness.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 18:23:46
What overconfidence? I am just saying you are unwilling to face it based on your own estimates of its capabilities.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 18:25:29
That is essentially how deterents work. It does not matter what they might actually do in a conflict, it matters what you think they could do.

You are detered if you think they can do more damage than you are willing to accept.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:28:51
Can we just ignore baghdad jergul's tired old spiel and get back to how wrong seb was about the tehran shootdown?
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:37:30
Sam:

Point of first impact was just below the flight deck. Thats where a chunk of the batteries are.

Second impact was further back.

You can see on the video released recently that shows both launches (30 seconds appart, second launch after first impact) that the place travels a considerable distance in level flight.

Sam, once again, seeing what he wants to see.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:38:03
As we are just making shit up now, Rugian thought 9/11 was a nuclear volcano.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:44:40
Habebe:

Right, but Iran has a 90%+ success rate of hitting valuable structures in American bases.

You've still not really articulated why deficiencies in point defence batteries target identification apply to any other capability; any more than it would make sense to assume that because the 7th fleet keep crashing their destroyers into tankers, USAF pilots will crash their planes too.

Its really illogical and unfounded. Different organisations, different control systems, different people, no real shared root cause. And in think you know that too, which is depressing, because it means you are just trying to comfort yourself with blandishments rather than thinking clearly through a fairly real threat, which if your thinking is shared, is going to fresh the West into another pointless, draining conflict to the benefit of Russia and China.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 15 18:52:48
"At the time of the Iraq war Iraq not only had a better funded and staffed military but had the most advanced rockets in the region iirc."

You don't recall correctly.

At the time of the 2003 conflict, Iraq had no operational airforce, had been subject to a decade of sanctions. It had no substantial rocket force, it's army so poorly funded that it's tank shells were operated with half the propellant charge normally used. And it's air defences were basically non existent having been destroyed in operation desert fox under Clinton.

In a war with Iran, the US would not be able to easily target road mobile Iranian IRBMs.

You need to hunt them down, which means you need to degrade air defence first, which takes time. And because air bases are trivially monitorable now with commercial satellite imagery, Iran can see the build up.

You'd not be able to destroy the bulk of the irbm forces in the first hours, so you'd suffer casualties to a few "sheds" (hangars and munitions storage say, billions of dollars).


In practice, as with North Korea, you'd need to pull way back and rely on carrier aircraft, cruise missiles and B2s to degrade air defences over a few days, then play hunt the missile.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jan 15 20:05:32
"Second impact was further back."

Wait, was it actually hit twice?

"At the time of the 2003 conflict"

I'm reasonably sure he's talking about the Iran-Iraq War.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 15 20:59:15
Seb, Im not arguing that it would be a cake walk, but remember *****Jerguls claim was that we would lose so much military equipment that we would not be able to replace it****** that is my argument, significant losses are not the same as wiping out so much US military equipment that we could not replace it...

significant losses? Yes. I would argue in the long run we would have a much more difficult time with the proxies that would drag out.But that is not the same as what Jergul was claiming.

As for Iraq I may be wrong, but remember hearing a lot about the threats of his rockets/ missiles and vast conventional forces ( mostly Soviet shit) but the rockets ***for the time***were some of the best stocks in the ME.

As for sanctions Iran has also been heavily sanctioned. Now


Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 15 21:18:12
To clarify my points.

1. We would suffer a lot in losses and it would be expensive as fuck.

2. The US population has no stomach for prolomged expensive wars im the ME.

3. The assumption that the Iranian conventional forces** would wipe out so much us military that we couldn't resupply it in time and that their conventional forces are in the top deterrents is absurd, a deterrent, yes, more so than the political fall out, or its proxie war machine? No.

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 15 22:03:37
"that the place travels a considerable distance in level flight. "

How does this have any bearing on any of the retarded shit you said? Eventually control is lost, the plane begins tumbling, burning and breaking up. The majority of her mass comes down in one place, yes, but shes burning and starting to break up before that.

It could not be otherwise with that kind of fire.



"Wait, was it actually hit twice?"

Yes. The iranians fired, saw it wasnt instantly killed, and the fired again some 20 to 30 seconds later. Its a fairly standard shootdown failure mode from then on. Fatally wounded at this point, the plane temporarily stayed aloft, likely until hydraulic fluid drained out from her flight controls or until the last wounded pilot died. Then losing control, aero forces began ripping the damaged plane apart, a large fire broke out as at least 1 fuel tank split open, and she tumbled to the ground in flames.

smart dude
Member
Wed Jan 15 23:48:38
I'd rather have a couple of kids with a rash (no casualties or hospitalizations) than a plane full of charred corpses.
smart dude
Member
Wed Jan 15 23:52:57
I don't have time to read all of this. Does Seb still think it was engine failure? Or does he think it is okay for Muslims to shoot down airliners? Or is he doing that whataboutism thing about 1988?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 16 00:06:27
Seb is trying to claim he thought it was a missile all along. Rofl!!!!
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 00:52:08
habebe
I said that whatever you lost in combat, write-offs, and wear-outs would not be replaceable in a timely manner.

High intensity conflicts are fight with what you have due to slow production rates and repair depot return rates. Hell, you probably still have Abrams heavily damaged in 2006 waiting to be repaired and refurbished.

Now, you do have Abrams and other equipment waiting for widows xp installations and other software upgrades in long term storage, but those still need massive upgrades at your repair depots before they could be deployed.

There is no doubt at all that a conflict would see a US military downgrade even as you pounded Iran to dust.

This matters in the grander scheme of things. If you check out your DoD mission statement, you will see that downgrade is the opposite of what it wants to do as it pivots away from the ME and towards emerging challenges over near China.

I have respected your desire not to discuss assymetrical warfare and limited the discussion to the deterent Iranian missiles provided.

Have you removed that restraint? Because, as you correctly point out, Iran has more deterents than its ballistic missile forces.

Your points 1 and 2 are extensions of your point 3.

I never said "you could not resupply in time". I have repeatedly said you could crush Iran.

But crushing Iran would degrade your military effectiveness significantly. It would take double digit years before the military would feel comfortable with another major conventional coflict as it rebuilt, reorganized, and reequipped after Iran.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 00:55:10
Ruggy
One variant is to revert back to the practice of using barbarians from your southern borderland to fight to a greater extent than you have done. You can reward them with US citizenship after many years of service.

US citizens need not die as you accumulate honours for the glory of God and president in foreign campaigns.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 01:15:44
Do you see the problem here (Kuwait is 73 km from the Iranian frontier)?:

"What is Army Prepositioned Stocks-5?

Ford: APS-5 is a massive set of equipment placed here to make rapidly deploying units faster. We give the warfighter the material capability they need to complete their missions.

Looking at the big picture, our job is to ensure APS-5 continues to provide viable strategic options to win.

All of our tanks are stored inside our warehouses ready for issue. They are configured for combat, meaning a unit can come in, hop in a tank, and drive it off the lot. They're quick and ready to roll out for any mission.

This mission is important because there will come a day when a deploying unit will need this equipment, and if it's not ready, then it could slow their mission down. It can be a life or death situation. Being able to provide the warfighter with the most ready equipment is our focus every day.

Tell me about the first time you saw Army Prepositioned Stocks-5.

Ford: I walked into one of our warehouses and saw an entire battalion worth of tanks. They were in lines all facing each other as far as I could see — 72-ton vehicles all the way down from wall to wall.

You don't often get to see something like that. Usually tanks are scattered out in fragmented lines waiting for operations or maintenance.

When I first saw it, I definitely felt excited about our mission and my part in it because I am the only tank [quality assurance] soldier here. All those tanks sitting there embodied my reason for being in Kuwait."

Business Insider 2019.
seb
Member
Thu Jan 16 09:00:27
Habebe:

He's saying you'd lose so much equipment you could not replace it under current budgets *if you did not rebase*, AND the rebasing would impose such costs (political, economic and tactical) as to rule out use of force as a useful response to many Iranian actions.

Put it this way, you keep a force of B2 bombers at diego Garcia in light air structures that are in range of Iran's longer range missiles iirc.

B2s are irreplaceable and what, a billion a pop?

So they'd need to not be there until the US was 100% confident that the iranian missile capability had been eliminated..

Because if they were, Iran could degrade an American strategic capability for over a decade.

Similarly, if your ships were in port positions around Qatar, they too could take a decade or more to replace.

The US isn't dumb enough (I think) to let this happen, but it means then you'd e.g. lose operational capability in theatre for weeks before the conflict.
seb
Member
Thu Jan 16 09:01:50
I'm not sure what you think jergul means by deterrent.

He literally just means "the threshold for the US to attack Iran conventionally is greatly increased".

patom
Member
Thu Jan 16 09:26:57
seb, that sounds sort of like what the Japanese thought in 41. Not that I'm calling for war but I highly doubt if Iran has even the remotest capability to replace what the US can rain down on them.
That is if the US grows a set of balls and really goes to war with the same zeal we did in 41. That may require the offing of a few industrialists that would prefer our wars to drag on endlessly.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 09:30:45
I am not even sure if *greatly* is correct. Its more that the missile deterrent is tactile, immediate, and concrete

No if you do A, then expect an uptick in militia group activity with unpredictable cosenquences over the medium and long term.

Its if you do A, then expect immediate damage and serious degradation of combat readiness in bases near Iran.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 09:32:26
Jergul, It wasnt at my request to only talk about conventional rockets.This was based off your original statements as I immediately said that a much tougher threat for the US is to fight things like swarms of fishing boats with bombs, why?

We have to determime in a short amount of time what is civilian and what is an attack, if kill a bunch of civilians that has an impact we don't want politically. Not to mention just the logistics of stopping swarms of explosive boats before they sink us.

My initial points again were that the US will have a much tougher time dealing with Iran's proxy and non conventional tactics as well as the aftermath(peacekeeping and rebuilding for decades) and that these issues are much MORE of a detterent than there conventional military.

Keep in mind that these are the same people who have a 67% failure rate of orbital launches compared to world wide 5% failure.


As you have stated many times they hoard. Old shotty equipment alongside the newer. Mranimg while some of the syuff may do well, a lot will not for example they planned for days to blow up some hangars, they got so.flusstered in the heat of battle they blew up a.civiliam plane.

These are different systems with in the same military. They had pretty accurate attacks on us....its debatable how accurate as us military statea they were targeting people, Iran seems fime for people to think they were not...who knows, don't.

Seb, my point was we have many more reasons to not want war with Iran than fear of there conventional military we all know what they are if not we have 3 or 4 threads on this were ive gone over this ot feels.1k times.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 09:56:26
Swarms of fishing boats with bombs is supposed to be more dangerous than anti-shipping missiles?

I laughed out loud at the thought of my old trawler trying to approach a carrier group with our incredibly powerful 12 knots of speed.

If you are scared of that, then anything is a deterrent.

Your Persian Gulf carrier group will be in the Indian ocean anyway (just like it was this time round), so the point is rather moot.

The missile deterrent is incredibly concrete. If you do A, then expect to see base capabilities become seriously degraded immediately.

How many missiles with a 75km+ range do you think Iran has?

a 10 000
b 100 000
c 1 000 000

?
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 10:15:38
Well they seem experiences at that and in the fog of war it increases oir chances of killing civilians, so yes its more of a threat.

If the US gets in the habit of killing civilians we quickly become the focus of an angry public.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 10:26:00
No, its not more of a threat. Its not even a threat. You are imagining stuff.

There has been speculation that armed speed boats might employ swarm tactics and somehow be dangerous (as if CIWSs cannot deal with water level threats).

But the points are all moot. Iran's anti-shipping missiles will keep US carrier groups out of the Gulf until you are able to deal with them.

You pulled your carrier group back to the Indian Ocean this round for a reason you know.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 10:29:27
The answer btw is between 400 000 and 600 000 IF it is true that Hezbolla has 150 000 missiles with a range of 75 km+

Iran has 3 to 4 times the missiles it has transferred to Hezbolla.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 10:32:26
You can speculate this and declare it a nom issue. However the last time they shot rockets they killed there own people by accident and that's not taken i to account...ok.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 10:35:47
The boats was just am.examplr. History shows us that fighting proxies and insurgents leads to blutred limes and.more dead civilians....that is a big issue, that is a threat.

Yes, we can probably stop most of the ships, and what happens when it's fisherman and not explosives?


jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 10:41:13
What the speed boats can actually do is interdict civilian shipping and lob 107 mm rockets at US bases on or close to the coast.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 10:44:30
Navy vessels in formation form a block that fishing boats will not approach, nor could approach.

What you seem to be asking is what happens if a US carrier group drives into a bunch of fishing vessels?

Why would you do that?

You will not stop most of the boats because you will not be anywhere near where the speed boats can be.

What part of pulling back to the Indian Ocean am I not communcating well?
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 10:51:21
Here is incidentally a piece of trivia for you.

Do you know why all missiles and rockets are more accurate these days?

Its because launchers know exactly where they are relative to what they want to hit.

That used to be a big problem. Saddam's scud launchers would only have had a general idea of where they were within a few kms when launching from remote desert locations.

Which means their aim would also be a few kms off even before launch.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 10:58:04
Well anyway...the sanctions seem to be working at least hurting the economy and changing public opinion....idk how well it's hindering the military.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 11:02:13
No what im saying is that when you blur fhw limes bwtween. An enemy combatant and civilian we arw either going to kill more civilians which takes the focus of an angry iranian populace aimed at the regime and focuses it at the US... You can't fight public opinion with guns and bombs.

That undermines all of.our efforts.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 11:03:15
Wow That came out terrible. But you get the point.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 11:19:42
Who is blurring what lines? Iran's speed boats are easily identifiable as combatants.

You will have a lot more trouble with their missile batteries that often have shipping container formats.
seb
Member
Thu Jan 16 11:39:13
Habebe:

If say, the US thought Iran was making a bomb,it used to have the last resort of waging an air war to stop it. This would take months and be costly, and there would be an uptick in terrorism and insurgency in the Shia crescent, though this could be managed. But it might be worth it.

Now, the US would also need to withdraw from much of Iraq and Syria during that period. This would make it impossible to contain the asymmetric threat, and might even result in US forces never returning, to enormous strategic detriment. And even where forces are withdrawn, long term strategic infrastructure might be lost - e.g. fleet base in Qatar.

Everything gets exacerbated

Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 12:10:46
Jergul, The boats were an example. Yes the short range*rockets are an issue and much more accurate, but I think your over stating there threat and that we have much more to worry about in regards to insurgents, public opinion ( at home and world wide)

Regardless, my cousin comes.home.today so I'm in a good mood ( he just served 11 years) so whatever. We all agree wat with Iran is a bad idea.

Political and economic pressure os safer and seems effective.
Prices are rising fast, the currency is worth less, people are angry at the regime and this is cheap and effective compated to expensive and harmful toward our goals.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 12:13:43
"Prices are rising fast, the currency is worth less, people are angry at the regime and this is cheap and effective compated to expensive and harmful toward our goals."

Yes, well South Carolina can be tough that way. You can always hope for regime change :D.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 12:44:29
Jergul, lol, well I wont argue there...our latest budget has 100 million for peison upgrades not to mention prison worker pay increases actually pay increases for all government employees....and a few million for flooding....the only pay increase I seen as ok was 3k more for teachers a year, but we need to match vocatio am schooling into the jr high and high school.

Our governor sucks. Oh and he plans to give everyone $50 again woohoo instead of investing in MUCH needed infrastructure we pass out fifties...wtf.




Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 12:45:52
http://www...vernment/article239183888.html

If your interested its the proposed SC budget.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 12:49:01
Public poverty sucks. We should have nice things collectively.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 12:51:58
Im not up for a communist debate. Thanks for tue bait though.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 12:54:01
Its not about communism. We own stuff collectively (like schools, libraries and the town hall).

Underfunding leads to stuff like that looking like crap. So we take less pride in our civic society.

Its a vicious circle.

If we build it, we should maintain it is all I am saying.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 12:56:04
Geeze. "collectively" is a tainted word? We calll travel by public transport to travel "kollektivt".
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 16 12:57:35
Jergul

We dont sustain many casualties because our enemies dont attempt to use the theater-denying methods you describe (and advocate). If they did, we'd be throwing tons of Mexican servicemen as cannon fodder on our march to Tehran.

Essentially, we dont treat the Middle East as a meat grinder for our troops because it's not warranted. I would strongly urge that your allies in Tehran and Damascus not make it warranted.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 16 12:58:41
Seb -

It's called a metaphor. I'm sure you chaps have those in the UK, unless they were banned for being hate speech or something.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 16 13:03:22
I agree, Reagan had it backwards when he said

" we should be worrying about pot heads, not pot holes"

But specifically in SC flooding amd drainage is IMO the largest issue that needs addressing. The soil here does not absorb water well, coupled with huge amoumts of rain...my pond is halfway in my yard...but its not just me...as a state on the whole flooding causes so much damage but could be prevented an issue that I think the state amd federal govenrment should help with.

Fema doles out billions after a disaster but spends little to prevent it which is cheaper....


Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 16 13:55:21
Sebs been so pwnt with the airplane thing hes turned into jergul. Lol.
seb
Member
Thu Jan 16 14:13:50
Rugian:

The term you are seeking is analogy. Also very wrong. I did consider the odds. The odds of a catastrophic engine failure are much higher than two airliners hitting the twin towers 45 mins appart, for the reasons I set out.
seb
Member
Thu Jan 16 14:15:10
Sam:

Whatever you need to tell yourself to not die of shame.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 14:25:48
Ruggy
No one said anything about theater denying weapons. You can still hang out in Jordan or the Red Sea to name two examples.

The problem with the Persion Gulf is geographical. It provides little freedom of navigation for a carrier group. The waters are constrained and yucky.

You pulled your carrier group from the PG as a standard operation is situations with heightened tensions with Iran.

Why oh why is your default troll mode Drama Queen?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 16 15:18:13


"Seb
Member Wed Jan 08 17:59:24
Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan (particularly if poorly maintained) can rupture the fuel tank. Engines are designed to try and contain them but it's not always successful. It'd look a lot like this."


"Seb
Member Fri Jan 10 09:05:08

Like I said, small missile"


Lol seb
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 16 15:20:34
Caught changing your story after you were totally wrong.

How embarrassing.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 16 22:44:34
The military say 11 injured now. Framing it as concussion screening, but interviews have already shown that soldiers found the attack terrifying.

I am thinking the concussion theory is being pushed due to the overlap between its longer term symptoms and that of an emerging stress disorder.

http://edi...iraq-exclusive-intl/index.html

For context. But nice the US military is taking mental health so seriously.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 17 00:20:29
But it does suggest the military should put some effort into HTFU training for rear echelon troops.

Perhaps combined with issuing earplugs if you buy the concussion part of the story.

So revamped training regimes for non-combatant specialties.
seb
Member
Fri Jan 17 01:08:26
Sam:

You aren't seriously interpreting the first post to mean I always said it was definitely an engine failure? Or the second one to be saying I definitely claimed it was a missile? The second one simply references that I said if it was a missile, it would need to be a small one contrary to your bullshit about how the plane was tumbling and disintigrating.

You are extremely poor at reading comprehension.
smart dude
Member
Fri Jan 17 01:19:55
"It couldn't possibly be a missle. The plane didn't crash like it was a missle attack."

-Seb (paraphrased)

Then video evidence proves that actually two missles hit the plane. Then (I assume) behind the scenes, Seb's wife's boyfriend admits that, yeah, maybe it was in fact a missle. Then Seb claims he said it was a missile the whole time.

???
seb
Member
Fri Jan 17 02:44:02
Smart Dude:

That is in no way a paraphrasing of what I said.



Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 17 02:45:26
A paraphrase that changes the entire meaning of a sentence isn't a paraphrase, it's called making shit up.
seb
Member
Fri Jan 17 02:46:32
Nor, I think, to anyone who can read and who has been following the conversation, am I saying I always claimed it was a missile.

I've always said a range of possibilities.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 17 02:51:00
At best you were hedging your bet, a bet you were not making. This is stupid, incredibly stupid, retarded one might say.
smart dude
Member
Fri Jan 17 03:01:16
"Always hedge. Never commit. Never be wrong."

-Seb

"Start every sentence with the word 'maybe'. If you're right, you look smart. If you're wrong, you look wise."

-Seb

"Muslims never cause plane crashes."

-Seb

paraphrasing again
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 17 03:07:51
SD
"Always hedge. Never commit. Never be wrong."

As I told you in the other thread, that isn't true at all. Seb regularly commits to positions. Do you even post on UP, bro?
seb
Member
Fri Jan 17 08:23:42
Nim:

So, it is stupid to commit to a position when you have no reason or sensible ground to commit?

Given my original point to smart Dude: stunt be hasty about ruling out a coincidence - what may seem "obviously" intuit often turns out to be less improbable than we intuit - is perfectly sound.


And my point to Sam was completely correct. He argued the evidence showed a phenomenon consistent with a hit from a big area defence missile that couldn't possibly result from an engine failure. He was completely wrong in his interpretation of the error, and the plane was not hit by the kind of missile that would have done the damage Hhe incorrectly inferred had been done, but a smaller missile that did damage that, from the available evidence at the time, was also consistent with catastrophic damage. The possiblity of a small missile I raised.

This isn't pointlessly hedging bets, it's a logical approach.

It's also interesting that you interpret me as leading to conclusions on "SJW" issues - often what I do is point out your evidence doesn't resolve between your preferred explanation.
seb
Member
Fri Jan 17 08:24:41
"I fuck goats" -Smart Dude

Paraphrasing, according to Smart Dude.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 17 09:39:29
Seb
I read Nimi's 2 posts as quite supportive of you.

Sammy's attack - retarded.
You taking firm positions quite regularly.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 17 09:42:24
No seb, that should have been clarified. What sam et al are doing is stupid, childish, retarded etc.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 17 09:49:13
And I meant that at best or worst depending on how you see ut you can fault seb for hedging his bet. That discussion (right or wrong) would closer to what actually happened, than whatever the fuck these 300+ posts are.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 17 10:47:22
Sebs like "i wasnt wrong because i went back in time and changed what i said"



"Seb
Member Wed Jan 08 17:59:24
Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan (particularly if poorly maintained) can rupture the fuel tank. Engines are designed to try and contain them but it's not always successful. It'd look a lot like this."


"Seb
Member Fri Jan 10 09:05:08

Like I said, small missile"


Lol oops.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 17 10:53:55
"Nor, I think, to anyone who can read and who has been following the conversation, am I saying I always claimed it was a missile."

Too bad you wrote that you claimed it was a missile at Fri Jan 10 09:05:08.

Lol dumbass. How can you possibly be this dumb when your statements are recorded?

A less mentally ill person than seb would man up, admit their mistake, and move on, instead of arguing that you meant something completely different from what you typed.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 17 10:58:26
Seb,

Not to stereotype, but it's very uncouth of a British gentleman to accept a loss with such a lack of grace.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 17 11:15:29
The honor of brits has apparently died with their empire :(

What a sad sad fall.
seb
Member
Fri Jan 17 11:32:55
Sam:

If that's how you read that post, I can only say your reading comprehension sucks. Few others are confused about the intent.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share