Interesting read of why we smoked him
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
Only scanned over it but noted a lot I agree with.
There in lies the problem is it truth or preaching to the choir?
There in lies the problem is it truth or preaching to the choir?
@Gunfighter14e2, thanks for sharing the link. Good read and interesting difference in perspective, especially with the Blob and Echo Chamber. The article is very much worth reading.
Blob and Echo chamber part is what caught me.
Is this unbiased think tank analyst work or is this partisan affirmation of shit I already think?
Is this unbiased think tank analyst work or is this partisan affirmation of shit I already think?
Do we really need a 21 page defending why he is dead? Not even the people who are pissed at our action have come out and said "he was a kind and gentle man, who loved cats".
Everyone (outside of Iran) pretty much agrees he was a cock sucker, fuck-em. Everyone cheered when Bin Ladin was assassinated (killed in a raid, WTF ever). Now this guy who was just as bad has crazy leftists crying in there lattes. Oh boo-who.
They are only crying because they have some how made the leap from, kill one guy to full blown WWIII.
Everyone (outside of Iran) pretty much agrees he was a cock sucker, fuck-em. Everyone cheered when Bin Ladin was assassinated (killed in a raid, WTF ever). Now this guy who was just as bad has crazy leftists crying in there lattes. Oh boo-who.
They are only crying because they have some how made the leap from, kill one guy to full blown WWIII.
I think its trying to do the analytical think tank thing of unraveling what happened.
I like the parts going into the psychology of why the decision to smoke sulimani was made but its superficial kind of puts the decision on "feelings" rather than intel.
Iran underestimated Trump, Iran underestimated US scars about past Embassy incidents, Iran underestimated what would happen when Khameni goaded Trump with "What are you going to do?"
They lack any intel perhaps that Solimani was in town to conduct a coup de gras and repeat 1979.
Its analysis, its interesting but what matters more is what is the past work of this group and where do their biases lie?
We all have biases.
Seems its a little smorgasboard that they could sell to both sides of the political spectrum, and make no mistake this shit is made for selling.
For those of you that did not read the whole article through, including the authors bios and their past written works (all included in the preamble, footnotes and resources), the Besa Center purports to be a non-political organization dedicated to supporting peace in the region.
If you only skimmed the article/report, then it’s almost assured that you’ve missed the full content and information within, especially if you just read the intro summaries. I suggest that if this kind of information really matters to you, that you take the few minutes needed to read it in it’s entirety.
As to bias, the answer is always yes. I said in another thread today that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone holds beliefs that are biased. Unless of course you live in a vacuum. Biases indicate a point of view and no matter how neutral you may consider yourself, your over-riding personal sense of what is right or wrong will come through and be perceived by someone as bias. It’s reality folks. Anyone that tells me that they are completely unbiased is either lying or doesn’t understand the concept.
So, my opinion? Read the article, take it for what it is worth and the different perspectives it may offer, and add it to your knowledge base. It will likely either reinforce, modify or insult your personal bias on the subject, but you may learn something too.
If you only skimmed the article/report, then it’s almost assured that you’ve missed the full content and information within, especially if you just read the intro summaries. I suggest that if this kind of information really matters to you, that you take the few minutes needed to read it in it’s entirety.
As to bias, the answer is always yes. I said in another thread today that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone holds beliefs that are biased. Unless of course you live in a vacuum. Biases indicate a point of view and no matter how neutral you may consider yourself, your over-riding personal sense of what is right or wrong will come through and be perceived by someone as bias. It’s reality folks. Anyone that tells me that they are completely unbiased is either lying or doesn’t understand the concept.
So, my opinion? Read the article, take it for what it is worth and the different perspectives it may offer, and add it to your knowledge base. It will likely either reinforce, modify or insult your personal bias on the subject, but you may learn something too.
Last edited:
Guilty as charged.
It is a pretty balanced article with something for both sides.
Among other things....Trumpers could say it supports the idea their tactics resulted in positive strategic consequences and Dems can say Trump is thin skinned.
Whats missing is what matters - the classified material facts.
No one will be dumber for reading it.
It will likely secure other research from both sides in the future.
Lets hope they don't hire Steele.
I agree that it would be nice to have the actual whys and wherefores behind the action to add some more perspective, but from the sound of things I hear in media, even our Congress critters don’t have that info yet, lol.
This is about the singular case of the beautiful shot taken by Trump, however, it is also about how Trump is making sure all of America knows that these think tanks and the like are the problem not what they believe as a solution. He made a decision and expediently executed that decision. No focus group or group think etc. He like most people that achieve at that level have a plan for far further than the ones reporting it. If you read Trumps books or books about him pre-campaign every day and contingencies for most likely the rest of his life have a plan to see to their fruition. It's rare they miss and if it doesn't look as perceived they can drop it and walk away without issue.
I'm fairly certain he has been enlightened on that however the knee jerk on the bump stock wasn't what I expected.
Wonder whatever happened with that investigation. Once the rabble-rousing Saudi was jailed in his own country not a single thing about that Vegas event. Amazing how his condo just happened to be above the vagina hat wearing shooter
Shocker! Prosecutors today report taped video from outside his cell in the first suicide attempt were destroyed.
Good read.
I just remember what a happened when Carter was President vs. the day after Reagan took office. It's quite clear how you deal with the current regime in Iran.
I just remember what a happened when Carter was President vs. the day after Reagan took office. It's quite clear how you deal with the current regime in Iran.
[QUOTE="lash, post: 8213199]
Biases indicate a point of view and no matter how neutral you may consider yourself, your over-riding personal sense of what is right or wrong will come through and be perceived by someone as bias.
[/QUOTE]
Of course. But, lets back up a tad.
Its not that it comes through or even perceived as biased...it IS inherently biased to begin with.
What you are referring to is positive or negative confirmation bias by the reader. Basically whether a reader agrees or not with the writers opinion (which IS inherently biased).
Its funny...people talk about bias as a negative. When it fact bias is part of survival instinct. To use historical observation and experiences and relate previous stimuli to the current environment.
Biases indicate a point of view and no matter how neutral you may consider yourself, your over-riding personal sense of what is right or wrong will come through and be perceived by someone as bias.
[/QUOTE]
Of course. But, lets back up a tad.
Its not that it comes through or even perceived as biased...it IS inherently biased to begin with.
What you are referring to is positive or negative confirmation bias by the reader. Basically whether a reader agrees or not with the writers opinion (which IS inherently biased).
Its funny...people talk about bias as a negative. When it fact bias is part of survival instinct. To use historical observation and experiences and relate previous stimuli to the current environment.
Of course. But, lets back up a tad.
Its not that it comes through or even perceived as biased...it IS inherently biased to begin with.
What you are referring to is positive or negative confirmation bias by the reader. Basically whether a reader agrees or not with the writers opinion (which IS inherently biased).
Its funny...people talk about bias as a negative. When it fact bias is part of survival instinct. To use historical observation and experiences and relate previous stimuli to the current environment.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly...
Similar threads
