The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
He seems to be parroting Erdogan's own propaganda. It's almost as if Erdogan is telling him what to say.Leinster in London wrote:Has he pointed out yet that the Germans too were on the beach in Normandy ?Wignu wrote:Sadly for them not on a beach in Normandy though.Rinkals wrote:They did.Saint wrote:Donny appears to be turning the US Military into a mercenary force. He's sending 1,800 US Soldiers to Saudi Arabia at the Saudi's request, but that's OK because the Saudi's are paying for everything
If only the Kurds had offered to pay
With their lives ...
President Donald Trump on Monday suggested Kurdish forces had released ISIS-related prisoners to bait him back into northeast Syria, but two US officials say it was actually Turkish-backed forces with ties to extremism that released the detainees, Foreign Policy reported.
The Free Syrian Army, a group of Arab militants in Syria backed by Turkey, is reported to be deliberately releasing ISIS detainees amid a Turkish military operation targeting the Kurds in northeast Syria.
Is this a serious question? Obviously not the second part, but it should be quite clear that Turkey would not be able to deliberately engage with US troops, no matter what the strengths of the units involved.kiwinoz wrote:How was a battalion of US forces going to stop Turkey throwing a couple of divisions across the border? If Assad protects the Kurds does he get a free tourist pass to Omaha beach?
Turkey didnt need to engage and would have avoided them - they knew where they were. Even then the US remaining troops have had shells lobbed in their general direction. Erdogan was looking for an excuse. Now he just has to avoid the Russians.Rinkals wrote:Is this a serious question? Obviously not the second part, but it should be quite clear that Turkey would not be able to deliberately engage with US troops, no matter what the strengths of the units involved.kiwinoz wrote:How was a battalion of US forces going to stop Turkey throwing a couple of divisions across the border? If Assad protects the Kurds does he get a free tourist pass to Omaha beach?
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.
You people are insane.kiwinoz wrote:How was a battalion of US forces going to stop Turkey throwing a couple of divisions across the border? If Assad protects the Kurds does he get a free tourist pass to Omaha beach?
GET BETTER SOURCES!kiwinoz wrote:https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.
I have to say that the notion that Obama was a secret Al Qaida operative seems implausible, even as a hypothetical case.RuggaBugga wrote:GET BETTER SOURCES!kiwinoz wrote:https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.
.......
Ha! Suck it Rinky.Big Nipper wrote:BREAKING NEWS JUST IN
You prick. One more paragraph in that little rant and I'd have had a bingo!!!Seneca of the Night wrote:
Tabibi is smacking it out of the park right now. There are three significant forces arraigned against Trump: (i) the Clintonite / Never Trumper / neo-con globalists (ii) the vast PC industrial complex of academia / media / SJW Antifa Maoist nutjobs (iii) what Tabibi identifies here as this 'lunatic spookworld'.
At this stage it's still possible to thread the needle and be a genuine Bernie supporter or even a Warren supporter from the right motives and places, but you better get it spot on and precise, because otherwise you are providing succour and essentially support for these depraved, power mad lunatic anti-democratic factions seeking to remove Trump from power by any means necessary.
And that would make you very very wrong indeed. This has to be done by election, or everything is lost.
I recall those heady early days. Some if us were saying it is appalling that the IC would behave in this way. Others were saying she's right mate, that's what you get for hurting their feelings. Nothing much has changed.Seneca of the Night wrote:Tabibi is smacking it out of the park right now. There are three significant forces arraigned against Trump: (i) the Clintonite / Never Trumper / neo-con globalists (ii) the vast PC industrial complex of academia / media / SJW Antifa Maoist nutjobs (iii) what Tabibi identifies here as this 'lunatic spookworld'.RuggaBugga wrote:GET BETTER SOURCES!kiwinoz wrote:https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.
.......
At this stage it's still possible to thread the needle and be a genuine Bernie supporter or even a Warren supporter from the right motives and places, but you better get it spot on and precise, because otherwise you are providing succour and essentially support for these depraved, power mad lunatic anti-democratic factions seeking to remove Trump from power by any means necessary.
And that would make you very very wrong indeed. This has to be done by election, or everything is lost.
I know Sen regards his own writing as highbrow prose, but surely I can't be the only one who thinks it's drivel?Seneca of the Night wrote:Make a choice Kiwias. Think carefully: have you got this right, or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.Kiwias wrote:You prick. One more paragraph in that little rant and I'd have had a bingo!!!Seneca of the Night wrote:
Tabibi is smacking it out of the park right now. There are three significant forces arraigned against Trump: (i) the Clintonite / Never Trumper / neo-con globalists (ii) the vast PC industrial complex of academia / media / SJW Antifa Maoist nutjobs (iii) what Tabibi identifies here as this 'lunatic spookworld'.
At this stage it's still possible to thread the needle and be a genuine Bernie supporter or even a Warren supporter from the right motives and places, but you better get it spot on and precise, because otherwise you are providing succour and essentially support for these depraved, power mad lunatic anti-democratic factions seeking to remove Trump from power by any means necessary.
And that would make you very very wrong indeed. This has to be done by election, or everything is lost.
It's got to the point where I now consider it my mission to save as many of you as possible. Obviously not Waratah, that dude is up to his ribcage with the great white shark of tyranny chomping down on his gutz and blood is spewing everywhere and his mouth is bubbling and frothing. It's a ghastly sight, but it can be a lesson to the rest of you.
Why on earth bring him into the conversation?Seneca of the Night wrote:Make a choice Kiwias. Think carefully: have you got this right, or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.Kiwias wrote:You prick. One more paragraph in that little rant and I'd have had a bingo!!!Seneca of the Night wrote:
Tabibi is smacking it out of the park right now. There are three significant forces arraigned against Trump: (i) the Clintonite / Never Trumper / neo-con globalists (ii) the vast PC industrial complex of academia / media / SJW Antifa Maoist nutjobs (iii) what Tabibi identifies here as this 'lunatic spookworld'.
At this stage it's still possible to thread the needle and be a genuine Bernie supporter or even a Warren supporter from the right motives and places, but you better get it spot on and precise, because otherwise you are providing succour and essentially support for these depraved, power mad lunatic anti-democratic factions seeking to remove Trump from power by any means necessary.
And that would make you very very wrong indeed. This has to be done by election, or everything is lost.
It's got to the point where I now consider it my mission to save as many of you as possible. Obviously not Waratah, that dude is up to his ribcage with the great white shark of tyranny chomping down on his gutz and blood is spewing everywhere and his mouth is bubbling and frothing. It's a ghastly sight, but it can be a lesson to the rest of you.
I'm right, though.Seneca of the Night wrote:BOOMERS
MerikansIn 2016, we learned a person with limited to no understanding of U.S. government & foreign policy could become President. In 2019, we learned a person with limited to no understanding of U.S. government & foreign policy is unlikely to be a good President. #Ukraine #Syria
DonBillydeParis wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote: the vast PC industrial complex.
The eejit's eejit. You and Ali's Choix should get married.Hillary is more like the Death Card from Tarot cardsglobus wrote:Hilary is the Ace. Cannot see her being Trumped.
Kiwias wrote:You prick. One more paragraph in that little rant and I'd have had a bingo!!!
SOTN finally sees sense....or decides not to be a contrarian for the sake of it ; the leaning on a foreign leader to get dirt on a political enemy I guess was a step too far even for himSeneca of the Night wrote:So no vote to be held on impeachment. She knows it's nonsense. Best thing is to keep stringing it out until election and make it a campaign issue. Staggeringly seedy politics. But there we go I guess.
Is that a no vote yet, or a no vote ever?Seneca of the Night wrote:So no vote to be held on impeachment. She knows it's nonsense. Best thing is to keep stringing it out until election and make it a campaign issue. Staggeringly seedy politics. But there we go I guess.
Oh man, the ironing.Seneca of the Night wrote: or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.
Rivalling the Sage of Jaywick for lack of reflectionsockwithaticket wrote:Oh man, the ironing.Seneca of the Night wrote: or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.
He's just on the wind up guys.ManInTheBar wrote:Rivalling the Sage of Jaywick for lack of reflectionsockwithaticket wrote:Oh man, the ironing.Seneca of the Night wrote: or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.
Yeah, nah, I'm thinking he'll be on the defend the indefensible in due course. Whatever floats your boat hey?Fat Old Git wrote:He's just on the wind up guys.ManInTheBar wrote:Rivalling the Sage of Jaywick for lack of reflectionsockwithaticket wrote:Oh man, the ironing.Seneca of the Night wrote: or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.
An oldie but a goodie.ManInTheBar wrote:Yeah, nah, I'm thinking he'll be on the defend the indefensible in due course. Whatever floats your boat hey?Fat Old Git wrote:He's just on the wind up guys.ManInTheBar wrote:Rivalling the Sage of Jaywick for lack of reflectionsockwithaticket wrote:Oh man, the ironing.Seneca of the Night wrote: or are you now essentially an apologist for unabashed despotic evil.
Promise?piquant wrote:The bus is parked on Donal's legs after the testimony from Fiona Hill, and I assume they'll now summon JohnBolton to see if he drives the bus fully over Trump. I'd still prefer the public getting to vote on whether to oust Trump in 2020, but it's also getting hard to see how the Senate can just ignore just how bad the behaviour was in all this, about the only defence Trump has left is he made the call to the Ukraine and spoke poorly without any knowledge of what was going on with Mulvaney, Giuliani and Sondland.
As a side note it remains weird just how pathetic and unnecessary the attempts to dig dirt on Hunter Biden were. We should never have needed to be here, is there any option for the Senate to censure the president following what will surely be their trial and not remove him from office?
Are you sure of that?ticketlessinseattle wrote:SOTN finally sees sense....or decides not to be a contrarian for the sake of it ; the leaning on a foreign leader to get dirt on a political enemy I guess was a step too far even for himSeneca of the Night wrote:So no vote to be held on impeachment. She knows it's nonsense. Best thing is to keep stringing it out until election and make it a campaign issue. Staggeringly seedy politics. But there we go I guess.
they finally found the server with the Skype video footage...I paint houses....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Expe7hf6MU
The bombshell criminal referral by the CIA lawyer? Looks like a process thing to me. Also looks like effectively the same referral the IG made and the the DOJ already addressed.piquant wrote:Promise what?
I do think it's getting serious now, far more serious than I thought it would be. They're going to have to look into what happened within the WH around this issue that saw not just some whistleblower reports but some department's lawyers make criminal referrals to the DoJ when they learned what was going on. Oddly the criminal referrals seem to have gone away, but why, and who made that instruction?
Santa wrote:The bombshell criminal referral by the CIA lawyer? Looks like a process thing to me. Also looks like effectively the same referral the IG made and the the DOJ already addressed.piquant wrote:Promise what?
I do think it's getting serious now, far more serious than I thought it would be. They're going to have to look into what happened within the WH around this issue that saw not just some whistleblower reports but some department's lawyers make criminal referrals to the DoJ when they learned what was going on. Oddly the criminal referrals seem to have gone away, but why, and who made that instruction?
I see nothing new. I see the same matter being dressed up again and again but looking fundamentally the same. And I see the 'investigation' being embellished with nonsense about diplomats feeling unundervalued or other similarly irrelevant shite.
I expect the Republicans will use this kind of shit strategy when they next have the House and there's a Dem in the WH. I hope they don't but I won't be surprised if they do and I will know who to blame.
Smoking gun. Why not vote?piquant wrote:Santa wrote:The bombshell criminal referral by the CIA lawyer? Looks like a process thing to me. Also looks like effectively the same referral the IG made and the the DOJ already addressed.piquant wrote:Promise what?
I do think it's getting serious now, far more serious than I thought it would be. They're going to have to look into what happened within the WH around this issue that saw not just some whistleblower reports but some department's lawyers make criminal referrals to the DoJ when they learned what was going on. Oddly the criminal referrals seem to have gone away, but why, and who made that instruction?
I see nothing new. I see the same matter being dressed up again and again but looking fundamentally the same. And I see the 'investigation' being embellished with nonsense about diplomats feeling unundervalued or other similarly irrelevant shite.
I expect the Republicans will use this kind of shit strategy when they next have the House and there's a Dem in the WH. I hope they don't but I won't be surprised if they do and I will know who to blame.
And we're back to claims water isn't wet
Why not vote as a mean to authorise an impeachment inquiry?Santa wrote:Smoking gun. Why not vote?piquant wrote:Santa wrote:The bombshell criminal referral by the CIA lawyer? Looks like a process thing to me. Also looks like effectively the same referral the IG made and the the DOJ already addressed.piquant wrote:Promise what?
I do think it's getting serious now, far more serious than I thought it would be. They're going to have to look into what happened within the WH around this issue that saw not just some whistleblower reports but some department's lawyers make criminal referrals to the DoJ when they learned what was going on. Oddly the criminal referrals seem to have gone away, but why, and who made that instruction?
I see nothing new. I see the same matter being dressed up again and again but looking fundamentally the same. And I see the 'investigation' being embellished with nonsense about diplomats feeling unundervalued or other similarly irrelevant shite.
I expect the Republicans will use this kind of shit strategy when they next have the House and there's a Dem in the WH. I hope they don't but I won't be surprised if they do and I will know who to blame.
And we're back to claims water isn't wet
Er, no. A vote to impeach. The Senate trial comes second. The Constitution stipulates that the House has to impeach. There's no other way to ascertain the House's view than to have a vote.piquant wrote:Why not vote as a mean to authorise an impeachment inquiry?Santa wrote:Smoking gun. Why not vote?piquant wrote:Santa wrote:The bombshell criminal referral by the CIA lawyer? Looks like a process thing to me. Also looks like effectively the same referral the IG made and the the DOJ already addressed.piquant wrote:Promise what?
I do think it's getting serious now, far more serious than I thought it would be. They're going to have to look into what happened within the WH around this issue that saw not just some whistleblower reports but some department's lawyers make criminal referrals to the DoJ when they learned what was going on. Oddly the criminal referrals seem to have gone away, but why, and who made that instruction?
I see nothing new. I see the same matter being dressed up again and again but looking fundamentally the same. And I see the 'investigation' being embellished with nonsense about diplomats feeling unundervalued or other similarly irrelevant shite.
I expect the Republicans will use this kind of shit strategy when they next have the House and there's a Dem in the WH. I hope they don't but I won't be surprised if they do and I will know who to blame.
And we're back to claims water isn't wet
I assume because they don't need to, such vote not being stipulated for. And I'd presume a certain amount of rigmarole might ensue with witnesses being called by those for and against, which could open lots of people up to being asked questions about all sorts, which isn't altogether a bad idea, but also would quickly cease being germane and allow Trump to try to through lots of shit around in the hope everyone and everything gets coated in an attempt to hide the issue theoretically under discussion.
Congress moves slowly at the best of times without going down that route.
Trump isn't wrong that he's not in effect lawyered up at this stage, but there's no requirement for that, this is only the fact finding part of the process, broadly equivalent to a grand jury hearing, whereas if it gets to the Senate that'll be the trial equivalent when Trump will get his representation and chance to present his case.
There's a fair argument it'd be better if neither side were giving a running commentary at this stage, but that doesn't seem realistic in the modern media landscape
Ah. Because they haven't completed speaking to witnesses and seeing where that leads, also I doubt they mind team Trump refusing to comply with requests to have people testify and turn over documents, every time Trump ducks having people turn up it's a bad look.Santa wrote:
We, no. A vote to impeach. The Senate trial comes second. The Constitution stipulates that the House has to impeach. There's no other way to aacertain the House's view than to have a vote.
You are saying it's a clear cut smoking gun deadset certain guilt. You think that based on the information currently known. If that's the case why not vote to impeach.
