The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[dimejinky99]

Russia saying they and North Korea are willing to give nukes to Iran to defend itself.

This is all going swimmingly isn’t it?
Terrific stuff

[wease]

He isn’t a Trump loyalist? Youd need to explain or reframe several years posting history if that’s the case. Loyalist or not he’s here on the daily explaining and validating what Trump meant to say / should do etc

This mornings was a Doozy, the Nobel prize post. Look it up for a giggle.

He’s not. That’s not to say he isn’t conservative-minded, but he’s not MAGA-Trump.

[wease]

Trump has long wanted to be a wartime president because he feels he’ll have unchecked, unlimited power. This is just another step towards his President-for-life goal. He’ll perpetuate this conflict on and on and elections will be canceled for the good of the country.

[dimejinky99]

He isn’t a Trump loyalist? Youd need to explain or reframe several years posting history if that’s the case. Loyalist or not he’s here on the daily explaining and validating what Trump meant to say / should do etc

This mornings was a Doozy, the Nobel prize post. Look it up for a giggle.

He’s not. That’s not to say he isn’t conservative-minded, but he’s not MAGA-Trump.

MAGA adjacent


Not sure it matters anymore, to be serious for a minute.

[dimejinky99]

Trump has long wanted to be a wartime president because he feels he’ll have unchecked, unlimited power. This is just another step towards his President-for-life goal. He’ll perpetuate this conflict on and on and elections will be canceled for the good of the country.

Would agree but I think this latest changes the complexion of the whole thing and how Trump will react. This is going to be Billy big balls dick swinging now and if he has any sense he’ll find a way to climb down from it and leave Israel to it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/na ... r-AA1HbJ30

[epilogue]

He isn’t a Trump loyalist? Youd need to explain or reframe several years posting history if that’s the case. Loyalist or not he’s here on the daily explaining and validating what Trump meant to say / should do etc

This mornings was a Doozy, the Nobel prize post. Look it up for a giggle.

He’s not. That’s not to say he isn’t conservative-minded, but he’s not MAGA-Trump.

I think there is more than enough evidence in his posting history to disagree with your assertion on this. He calls himself a "normie" when it came to politics, sure, and I used to think he meant that in the traditional sense (even if I thought he was being dishonest with himself or wasn't able to see himself clearly, I believed he believed it). But now I'm certain what he means is that he believes being "normie" is "normalizing Trump."

He'll backtalk a fair game. He'll gaslight a little bit. He'll dance and distract. He'll dunk and then not actually respond on the substance or the merits. He'll accuse you of doing the very thing he does (kinda like Trump!). And every once in a while he'll make you think about trusting him with a convincing head fake. One rational or moderate position among a hundred actually insane hard right wing takes does not a "normie" make.

I've been around this place long enough to see the sleight of hand.

[dimejinky99]

He isn’t a Trump loyalist? Youd need to explain or reframe several years posting history if that’s the case. Loyalist or not he’s here on the daily explaining and validating what Trump meant to say / should do etc

This mornings was a Doozy, the Nobel prize post. Look it up for a giggle.

He’s not. That’s not to say he isn’t conservative-minded, but he’s not MAGA-Trump.

I think there is more than enough evidence in his posting history to disagree with your assertion on this. He calls himself a "normie" when it came to politics, sure, and I used to think he meant that in the traditional sense (even if I thought he was being dishonest with himself or wasn't able to see himself clearly, I believed he believed it). But now I'm certain what he means is that he believes being "normie" is "normalizing Trump."

He'll backtalk a fair game. He'll gaslight a little bit. He'll dance and distract. He'll dunk and then not actually respond on the substance or the merits. He'll accuse you of doing the very thing he does (kinda like Trump!). And every once in a while he'll make you think about trusting him with a convincing head fake. One rational or moderate position among a hundred actually insane hard right wing takes does not a "normie" make.

I've been around this place long enough to see the sleight of hand.

Exactly all of this.

[washing machine]

I hear the frustration in your post, but I want to push back on the instinct to paint someone entirely based on our own interpretations or assumptions—especially when it comes to politics. It's really easy to fall into tribalism and start labeling people in a way that shuts down the possibility of dialogue. Once we decide someone’s secretly “one of them,” we start filtering everything they say through that lens, and suddenly even a disagreement becomes a conspiracy.

Disagreeing with someone’s views—or even patterns in their posts—is fair game. But when we start accusing people of “gaslighting” or running psychological operations just because they don’t fit neatly into our political expectations, we lose something valuable: the ability to engage in good faith. It’s one thing to critique ideas; it’s another to reduce people to avatars of political stereotypes.

We’ve got to be better than that. The internet already rewards dunking, sniping, and suspicion. Let’s not add to that pile by assuming the worst of each other every time someone doesn’t say what we think a “normie” or a “non-normie” should say.

[spike]

I hear the frustration in your post, but I want to push back on the instinct to paint someone entirely based on our own interpretations or assumptions—especially when it comes to politics. It's really easy to fall into tribalism and start labeling people in a way that shuts down the possibility of dialogue. Once we decide someone’s secretly “one of them,” we start filtering everything they say through that lens, and suddenly even a disagreement becomes a conspiracy.

Disagreeing with someone’s views—or even patterns in their posts—is fair game. But when we start accusing people of “gaslighting” or running psychological operations just because they don’t fit neatly into our political expectations, we lose something valuable: the ability to engage in good faith. It’s one thing to critique ideas; it’s another to reduce people to avatars of political stereotypes.

We’ve got to be better than that. The internet already rewards dunking, sniping, and suspicion. Let’s not add to that pile by assuming the worst of each other every time someone doesn’t say what we think a “normie” or a “non-normie” should say.

And I’ll push back on you assuming anyone who disagrees with bi isn’t giving him a fair shake. You’re feeding into the libtard angle, be better.

[epilogue]

I hear the frustration in your post, but I want to push back on the instinct to paint someone entirely based on our own interpretations or assumptions—especially when it comes to politics. It's really easy to fall into tribalism and start labeling people in a way that shuts down the possibility of dialogue. Once we decide someone’s secretly “one of them,” we start filtering everything they say through that lens, and suddenly even a disagreement becomes a conspiracy.

And I hear you but I also want to push back. That isn't at all what I'm doing. This isn't about assumptions. It's about what he has said and done. This isn't about tribalism. There are plenty of RMers with whom I disagree politically but also respect. Burt comes to mind. I detest his worldview but I respect him because I know where he stands and he's consistantly forthright and intellectually honest. He's a good faith opponent, usually.

Bi isn't secretly anything. Just read his posts. And I'm not being conspiratorial. It's a little insulting that your instinct is to assume that's what's happening here. But I know you don't intend it that way. I'm just seeing your own bias. And I get it. We all have bias.

Disagreeing with someone’s views—or even patterns in their posts—is fair game. But when we start accusing people of “gaslighting” or running psychological operations just because they don’t fit neatly into our political expectations, we lose something valuable: the ability to engage in good faith. It’s one thing to critique ideas; it’s another to reduce people to avatars of political stereotypes.

I agree. But I can't think of a better word for the way he interacts with posters, especially those he calls "proggles."

We’ve got to be better than that. The internet already rewards dunking, sniping, and suspicion. Let’s not add to that pile by assuming the worst of each other every time someone doesn’t say what we think a “normie” or a “non-normie” should say.

I agree. Again, it's telling that you think that's what's happening here.

I'm just telling you what I've seen him post, the way he has interacted with users, especially those he disagrees with.

[washing machine]

I guess I just don't post enough in N&D to truly understand the dynamics and the moments of good faith debating.

[spike]

I guess I just don't post enough in N&D to truly understand the dynamics and the moments of good faith debating.

An example would be bi claiming that I’m sharing a tweet from a white supremacist account when that’s not the case, in an attempt to frame my opinions as such. Not good faith and a failed dunk.

[Bi_3]

I hear the frustration in your post, but I want to push back on the instinct to paint someone entirely based on our own interpretations or assumptions—especially when it comes to politics. It's really easy to fall into tribalism and start labeling people in a way that shuts down the possibility of dialogue. Once we decide someone’s secretly “one of them,” we start filtering everything they say through that lens, and suddenly even a disagreement becomes a conspiracy.

And I hear you but I also want to push back. That isn't at all what I'm doing. This isn't about assumptions. It's about what he has said and done. This isn't about tribalism. There are plenty of RMers with whom I disagree politically but also respect. Burt comes to mind. I detest his worldview but I respect him because I know where he stands and he's consistantly forthright and intellectually honest. He's a good faith opponent, usually.

Bi isn't secretly anything. Just read his posts. And I'm not being conspiratorial. It's a little insulting that your instinct is to assume that's what's happening here. But I know you don't intend it that way. I'm just seeing your own bias. And I get it. We all have bias.

Disagreeing with someone’s views—or even patterns in their posts—is fair game. But when we start accusing people of “gaslighting” or running psychological operations just because they don’t fit neatly into our political expectations, we lose something valuable: the ability to engage in good faith. It’s one thing to critique ideas; it’s another to reduce people to avatars of political stereotypes.

I agree. But I can't think of a better word for the way he interacts with posters, especially those he calls "proggles."

We’ve got to be better than that. The internet already rewards dunking, sniping, and suspicion. Let’s not add to that pile by assuming the worst of each other every time someone doesn’t say what we think a “normie” or a “non-normie” should say.

I agree. Again, it's telling that you think that's what's happening here.

I'm just telling you what I've seen him post, the way he has interacted with users, especially those he disagrees with.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about how to understand the world. From my perspective, I try to separate individual policies or decisions from the person making them. I can criticize Trump as a person while acknowledging when he does something I agree with, and to me that is completely logically consistent and rational. I have noticed that when I post something that seems inconsistent with a clear 'pro-Trump' or 'anti-Trump' stance, it gets interpreted as deception or gaslighting. But I'm genuinely trying to evaluate each issue on its merits rather then punish the thought for the thinker. Trying to separate idea from identity. I get why this approach might seem suspicious. It's difficult be exposed to ideas that run so contradictory to what you believe or are used to or hear echoed by friends and media. I get that. You might struggle to believe that anyone would honestly think those things. But I think this binary approach of yours, tying criticism and praise of ideas to the identity of the speaker, prevents us here, and the American public more broadly, from having productive discussions about our country and the policies that effect our lives, and I think you are missing out on a lot by adopting that pattern. So if you think I'm factually wrong about something, call me out, I'm happy to discuss the event and produce evidence. I've been wrong here before and have readily admitted it when confronted.

I guess I just don't post enough in N&D to truly understand the dynamics and the moments of good faith debating.

An example would be bi claiming that I’m sharing a tweet from a white supremacist account when that’s not the case, in an attempt to frame my opinions as such. Not good faith and a failed dunk.

That was a reference to the actual white supremacist account you posted from here dude: http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 1#p2187631

[spike]

I hear the frustration in your post, but I want to push back on the instinct to paint someone entirely based on our own interpretations or assumptions—especially when it comes to politics. It's really easy to fall into tribalism and start labeling people in a way that shuts down the possibility of dialogue. Once we decide someone’s secretly “one of them,” we start filtering everything they say through that lens, and suddenly even a disagreement becomes a conspiracy.

And I hear you but I also want to push back. That isn't at all what I'm doing. This isn't about assumptions. It's about what he has said and done. This isn't about tribalism. There are plenty of RMers with whom I disagree politically but also respect. Burt comes to mind. I detest his worldview but I respect him because I know where he stands and he's consistantly forthright and intellectually honest. He's a good faith opponent, usually.

Bi isn't secretly anything. Just read his posts. And I'm not being conspiratorial. It's a little insulting that your instinct is to assume that's what's happening here. But I know you don't intend it that way. I'm just seeing your own bias. And I get it. We all have bias.

Disagreeing with someone’s views—or even patterns in their posts—is fair game. But when we start accusing people of “gaslighting” or running psychological operations just because they don’t fit neatly into our political expectations, we lose something valuable: the ability to engage in good faith. It’s one thing to critique ideas; it’s another to reduce people to avatars of political stereotypes.

I agree. But I can't think of a better word for the way he interacts with posters, especially those he calls "proggles."

We’ve got to be better than that. The internet already rewards dunking, sniping, and suspicion. Let’s not add to that pile by assuming the worst of each other every time someone doesn’t say what we think a “normie” or a “non-normie” should say.

I agree. Again, it's telling that you think that's what's happening here.

I'm just telling you what I've seen him post, the way he has interacted with users, especially those he disagrees with.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about how to understand the world. From my perspective, I try to separate individual policies or decisions from the person making them. I can criticize Trump as a person while acknowledging when he does something I agree with, and to me that is completely logically consistent and rational. I have noticed that when I post something that seems inconsistent with a clear 'pro-Trump' or 'anti-Trump' stance, it gets interpreted as deception or gaslighting. But I'm genuinely trying to evaluate each issue on its merits rather then punish the thought for the thinker. Trying to separate idea from identity. I get why this approach might seem suspicious. It's difficult be exposed to ideas that run so contradictory to what you believe or are used to or hear echoed by friends and media. I get that. You might struggle to believe that anyone would honestly think those things. But I think this binary approach of yours, tying criticism and praise of ideas to the identity of the speaker, prevents us here, and the American public more broadly, from having productive discussions about our country and the policies that effect our lives, and I think you are missing out on a lot by adopting that pattern. So if you think I'm factually wrong about something, call me out, I'm happy to discuss the event and produce evidence. I've been wrong here before and have readily admitted it when confronted.

I guess I just don't post enough in N&D to truly understand the dynamics and the moments of good faith debating.

An example would be bi claiming that I’m sharing a tweet from a white supremacist account when that’s not the case, in an attempt to frame my opinions as such. Not good faith and a failed dunk.

That was a reference to the actual white supremacist account you posted from here dude: http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 1#p2187631

Then you tried to double down: http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 7#p2188547

And more importantly, so much for you being the separating ideas from identity guy.

[Bi_3]

Spike, the first account is clearly a white supremacist account filled with hate speech (some of the content is probably illegal for some posters here) and the second one is obviously not a white supremacist account like first one and no one would make that mistake, but I called them the same anyway. Like if I pointed to an animal that was clearly a fish, I knew it was a fish, no one looking at it would call it anything but a fish, and called it a dog. What might be going on there? Is that the gaslighting?

Also, I’m not going to fall for that ‘defend a white supremacist for posting AI slop or you’re a liar’ setup. Come on now.

[dimejinky99]

I thought all Trump really cares about, other than himself, is polls? Well there’s one

"Do you want America to be at war with Iran?"

No: 85%
Yes: 5%

YouGov / June 22, 2025

[spike]

I thought all Trump really cares about, other than himself, is polls? Well there’s one

"Do you want America to be at war with Iran?"

No: 85%
Yes: 5%

YouGov / June 22, 2025

He cares about his approval rating more. There’s always a tweet.

[dimejinky99]

Every time. But you’d wonder who is pulling his strings now?

Was he projecting in those tweets? Thinking ‘here’s what I’d do if I were in Obama’s situation’?
That’s probably too kind a reading of it

[dimejinky99]

Good read on what the bombing at Fordow achieved. *not much and they’ve probably moved all critical work and uranium out of there ages ago and there’s no way of knowing.


https://www.wired.com/story/iran-fordow ... es-damage/

[simple schoolboy]

Now that we've parked large numbers of aircraft in Saudi Arabia and other nearby bases and Iran is promising to hit back, what's the plan exactly? We should retain those assets in case they need to get destroyed by PRC Rocket Forces in the near future. Seems undignified to lose airframes to Iranian ballistic missiles.