8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you understand that the US Secretary of Defense said he had seen no such evidence?

Well if the US Defence Secretary had no such evidence then as I said  it's highly unlikely that any members of Thai Visa had any either.

1 minute ago, yogi100 said:

Well if the US Defence Secretary had no such evidence then as I said  it's highly unlikely that any members of Thai Visa had any either.

What's more to the point, it's also highly unlikely that Trump did.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

What's more to the point, it's also highly unlikely that Trump did.

I did not say anybody including Trump had this evidence.

 

I was replying to Bluespunk who wrote 'Show me the evidence of a plan to blow up an embassy' in post number 10. 

 

Which implied that he, Bluespunk rightly or wrongly possibly believed that such plans existed.

 

I replied to him pointing out that if these plans did exist it's unlikely that any TVF member would be aware of their existence. 

All I know is that there are arab armies in our neighborhoods, but plenty of US and European armies in their neighborhoods to "liberate them" 

They are doing exactly what we would be doing if we were in their situation, why some people don't see that, is beyond me.  

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

However tendentious and overwrought your characterization of Soleimani may be, I'm sure Isis agrees with you that his assassination was a good thing.. They must be thrilled that the Iraqi government now wants the US out of Iraq. They must be thrilled that US troops in Iraq will now have to contend with the open enmity of Iraqi militias bent on revenge. But it gets even better than that for them.. The US is now threatening to withhold Iraqi money if Iraq goes ahead and does officially ask them to leave. This is going to rile up the Iraqis even more. (This on top of Trump's repeated moronic statement that the US should keep the oil wells in Syria. He even suggested that they be given to Exxon.)

In death, Soleimani is an even more formidable foe than when he was alive.

Add to it that, after having been $€*^÷% by Trump, the Kurds may well look the other way next time they encounter ISIS commandos.

32 minutes ago, candide said:

Add to it that, after having been $€*^÷% by Trump, the Kurds may well look the other way next time they encounter ISIS commandos.

Yes, you can stab some of the people in the back some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.  (and I dont think there is anybody in the West who has not stabbed the poor Kurds in the back at some time or other).

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

I did not say anybody including Trump had this evidence.

 

I was replying to Bluespunk who wrote 'Show me the evidence of a plan to blow up an embassy' in post number 10. 

 

Which implied that he, Bluespunk rightly or wrongly possibly believed that such plans existed.

 

I replied to him pointing out that if these plans did exist it's unlikely that any TVF member would be aware of their existence. 

Really? As in "show me the money"? Or any other object following "show me..."?  It's a skeptical challenge to produce the goods, no matter what class of goods is being referred to.

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

9 hours ago, yogi100 said:

It's highly unlikely a member of this forum would have access to such evidence. In fact it's not going to be made available to any Westerner nor the Western media. Such a plan would be kept secret for obvious security reasons!

Do you understand that the US Secretary of Defense said he had seen no such evidence?

Here is what I understand the Secretary of Defence said, verbatim.

 

“What the president said was that there probably could be additional attacks against embassies. I shared that view,” Esper said. “The president didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence.”

 

Esper said in a separate interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the administration had “exquisite intelligence” that a broader attack against multiple embassies was likely but that could only be shared with the “Gang of Eight,” a group of top congressional leaders who get briefed on sensitive information that the rest of Congress does not have access to.

 

So Pelosi, the main stream media, and ThaiVIsa don't know.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-usa/pentagon-chief-says-no-specific-evidence-iran-was-plotting-to-attack-four-us-embassies-idUSKBN1ZB0KM

Edited January 13, 20206 yr by rabas

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

Here is what I understand the defence secretary said, verbatum.

 

“What the president said was that there probably could be additional attacks against embassies. I shared that view,” Esper said. “The president didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence.”

 

Esper said in a separate interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the administration had “exquisite intelligence” that a broader attack against multiple embassies was likely but that could only be shared with the “Gang of Eight,” a group of top congressional leaders who get briefed on sensitive information that the rest of Congress does not have access to.

 

So Pelosi, the main stream media, and ThaiVIsa don't know.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-usa/pentagon-chief-says-no-specific-evidence-iran-was-plotting-to-attack-four-us-embassies-idUSKBN1ZB0KM

From this  article posted by thaivisa.com

"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and member of the Gang of Eight, said on Sunday that the group was not informed about possible attacks on four embassies.

"There was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets," he said."

 

 You asserted that "So Pelosi, the main stream media, and ThaiVIsa don't know."

I got news for you. Pelosi is a member of the Gang of Eight.

 

And here's another exciting consequence of Trump's action:

The UK is abandoning its alliance with Trump as the United States 'withdraws from its leadership around the world'

President Donald Trump's order to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani has triggered a major rupture between the US and its historically closest ally, the UK.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-abandoning-trump-iran-us-withdraw-leadership-world-qassem-soleiman2020-1

 

 

4 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I did not say anybody including Trump had this evidence.

 

I was replying to Bluespunk who wrote 'Show me the evidence of a plan to blow up an embassy' in post number 10. 

 

Which implied that he, Bluespunk rightly or wrongly possibly believed that such plans existed.

 

I replied to him pointing out that if these plans did exist it's unlikely that any TVF member would be aware of their existence. 

Try to link me into posts if you are going to speak about what I said.
 

Or attempt to explain why I posted as I did.

 

Especially if you are going to get it so wrong. 
 

I asked a member, who was attempting to discredit my post, to back up their unproven claim with evidence. 

If posters are attempting to negate another’s post with claims, they need to back up such claims. 
 

Edited January 13, 20206 yr by Bluespunk

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And here's another exciting consequence of Trump's action:

The UK is abandoning its alliance with Trump as the United States 'withdraws from its leadership around the world'

President Donald Trump's order to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani has triggered a major rupture between the US and its historically closest ally, the UK.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-abandoning-trump-iran-us-withdraw-leadership-world-qassem-soleiman2020-1

Business Insider? Now lets see what UK Secretary of Defence Ben Wallace really means courtesy of the BBC and Wallace himself.

 

"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," Mr Wallace told the Sunday Times. "That would be bad for the world and bad for us.

 

A completely different tone I think.  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51081861

13 hours ago, yogi100 said:

The IRA are the only Christian organisation we've been in conflict with in recent years.

Obviously you don't expect Islamic terrorists to chant about trusting God etc do you?

yes ,but the IRA were not going all over the world ,blowing up civilians ,of other faiths ,unlike the Muslim terrorists ,thats why i said not to bother including them ,that was our own problem in our own country .

21 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Let me add, I do not mourn soleimiani’s passing or support Hezbollah. 

 

That's good because many of us were not sure. The guy deserved to be hit whether he was blowing up embassies or not. 

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's good because many of us were not sure. The guy deserved to be hit whether he was blowing up embassies or not. 

"That's good because many of us were not sure. The guy deserved to be hit whether he was blowing up embassies or not." 

How do you feel about American troops, who are now in greater jeopardy. Keep in mind that not only did the US kill Soleimani, but also a leader of a coalition of militias who was a member of the Iraqi government.

11 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

Yes, you can stab some of the people in the back some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.  (and I dont think there is anybody in the West who has not stabbed the poor Kurds in the back at some time or other).

In 1916 the British army surrendered after the siege of Kut in today's Iraq. The survivors were marched into captivity where thousands of them died.

 

Their guards in the camps where these unarmed and defenceless POWs were held were Kurds serving in the Ottoman Army.

 

At the time KUT was the worst defeat the allies had suffered in the Great War and as it involved the British it was largely swept under the carpet and significantly out of the history of that conflict. 

 

And along with what amounted to a cover up what became of those unfortunate POWs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 20206 yr by yogi100

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Try to link me into posts if you are going to speak about what I said.
 

Or attempt to explain why I posted as I did.

 

Especially if you are going to get it so wrong. 
 

I asked a member, who was attempting to discredit my post, to back up their unproven claim with evidence. 

If posters are attempting to negate another’s post with claims, they need to back up such claims. 
 

Here is your actual post, the one that I replied to. 

 

"Show me the evidence of a plan to blow up an embassy." 

 

8 hours ago, rabas said:

Business Insider? Now lets see what UK Secretary of Defence Ben Wallace really means courtesy of the BBC and Wallace himself.

 

"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," Mr Wallace told the Sunday Times. "That would be bad for the world and bad for us.

 

A completely different tone I think.  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51081861

Really?

"He said the defence review should be used to make the UK less dependent on the US in future conflicts.

"Over the last year we've had the US pull out from Syria, the statement by Donald Trump on Iraq where he said Nato should take over and do more in the Middle East," Mr Wallace said.

 

"The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be."

 

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's good because many of us were not sure. The guy deserved to be hit whether he was blowing up embassies or not. 

As long as you accept iran has the right to a similar point of view regarding USA military leaders...

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

As long as you accept iran has the right to a similar point of view regarding USA military leaders...

 

That's fine except they tend to target commercial airliners with civilians these days.

55 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Here is your actual post, the one that I replied to. 

 

"Show me the evidence of a plan to blow up an embassy." 

And care to explain the posts that led to that one...that post cannot be understood in isolation of them. 

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's fine except they tend to target commercial airliners with civilians these days.

Much like the USA did in 1988 with flight 655...

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

All I know is that there are arab armies in our neighborhoods, but plenty of US and European armies in their neighborhoods to "liberate them" 

They are doing exactly what we would be doing if we were in their situation, why some people don't see that, is beyond me.  

i think its about time we invaded those Vikings that came and subjugated us as well , 

19 hours ago, JDGRUEN said:

You're talking about the Narcissistic Pathologic Liar Obama aren't you? 

Can you give me some lists?

https://www.google.co.th/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/07/anatomy-trump-rally-percent-claims-are-false-or-lacking-evidence/%3foutputType=amp

 

67 percent of Trump’s last rally was false or misleading information 

 

I suspect, by election time it will be 85 or 90 percent lies and fabrications at his rallies, and maybe 60 percent on Twitter.

 

He should start a cult and all his fans to give him all their money-or a tv evangelical 

Edited January 14, 20206 yr by Redline

So it was an imminent threat to an embassy.

Then an imminent threat to 4 embassies.

Esper says there wasnt one.

 

im interested, did those embassies get a warning of such an imminent threat? Save you the search, no. So its gross negligence to claim such a threat but not tell the embassies involved about it.

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

So it was an imminent threat to an embassy.

Then an imminent threat to 4 embassies.

Esper says there wasnt one.

 

im interested, did those embassies get a warning of such an imminent threat? Save you the search, no. So its gross negligence to claim such a threat but not tell the embassies involved about it.

He was on a terrorist kill list and the his termination was the culmination of a nine month operation. 
 

 

 

12 hours ago, yogi100 said:

In 1916 the British army surrendered after the siege of Kut in today's Iraq. The survivors were marched into captivity where thousands of them died.

 

Their guards in the camps where these unarmed and defenceless POWs were held were Kurds serving in the Ottoman Army.

 

At the time KUT was the worst defeat the allies had suffered in the Great War and as it involved the British it was largely swept under the carpet and significantly out of the history of that conflict. 

 

And along with what amounted to a cover up what became of those unfortunate POWs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you.  I was unaware of this incident.......terrible.  However I have been doing a little reading since your post but can only find reference to Turks, not Kurds (but they could of course be the same.  I am not inferring that I doubt you at all but could you please direct me to a source/link?

 

Back to topic, this one incident, if correct, does not negate my statement that the Kurds have through history been repeatedly stabbed in the back by the West.  I believe the first instance was after WW1 when the British carved up this whole area in its greed for oil, without any consideration for the Kurds and their homeland.

 

38 minutes ago, ThaiFelix said:

Thank you.  I was unaware of this incident.......terrible.  However I have been doing a little reading since your post but can only find reference to Turks, not Kurds (but they could of course be the same.  I am not inferring that I doubt you at all but could you please direct me to a source/link?

 

Back to topic, this one incident, if correct, does not negate my statement that the Kurds have through history been repeatedly stabbed in the back by the West.  I believe the first instance was after WW1 when the British carved up this whole area in its greed for oil, without any consideration for the Kurds and their homeland.

 

There are books on the subject regarding the Siege and the Battles of Kut. I read one years ago and it referred to the fate of our POWs at the hands of the Ottomans and the Kurdish guards. You'll have to look them up yourself as I forget which one I read. You'll possibly discover more about it on the internet. 

 

It was no joke falling into the hands of the Turks in the Great War. Google The Sandringhams the Lost Battalion. They disappeared into thin air after a defeat by the Turks. You can imagine what became of them. Probably the same fate as befell Tommies captured in the Afghan Wars 50 years previously. But they also are long forgotten. Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about it.

 

The Ottoman Empire was a multinational one. It's forces were from that Empire and that included Kurdistan. They were not just Turks. 

 

After WW1 the Turks were reviled in Britain because of their brutality and vicious nature. In much the same way as the Nazi and the Japanese were after WW2 but the fact that the Turks in WW1 had an international army from that region has long been overlooked.

 

Today it's fashionable to sympathise with the Kurds and there are those who even want Turkey to join the EU!

 

In WW2 some of the treatment meted out to allied POWs in Japanese camps was the work of Korean guards. They were said to be worse than the Japs but that's also conveniently overlooked.

15 hours ago, yogi100 said:

There are books on the subject regarding the Siege and the Battles of Kut. I read one years ago and it referred to the fate of our POWs at the hands of the Ottomans and the Kurdish guards. You'll have to look them up yourself as I forget which one I read. You'll possibly discover more about it on the internet. 

 

It was no joke falling into the hands of the Turks in the Great War. Google The Sandringhams the Lost Battalion. They disappeared into thin air after a defeat by the Turks. You can imagine what became of them. Probably the same fate as befell Tommies captured in the Afghan Wars 50 years previously. But they also are long forgotten. Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about it.

 

The Ottoman Empire was a multinational one. It's forces were from that Empire and that included Kurdistan. They were not just Turks. 

 

After WW1 the Turks were reviled in Britain because of their brutality and vicious nature. In much the same way as the Nazi and the Japanese were after WW2 but the fact that the Turks in WW1 had an international army from that region has long been overlooked.

 

Today it's fashionable to sympathise with the Kurds and there are those who even want Turkey to join the EU!

 

In WW2 some of the treatment meted out to allied POWs in Japanese camps was the work of Korean guards. They were said to be worse than the Japs but that's also conveniently overlooked.

Thanks, interesting post.  One of course is only as good as the information available to him but it seems that cruelty so often arises in any description of the Turks' behaviour during WW1.  However, as you say, the word "Turk" has most times replaced the term "Otterman" in history when referring to Otterman soldiers.