(01-11-2020 06:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture. So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

This is the the "See what you made me do" defense. Lots of domestic violence happens under this theory.

It goes somethings like this:

You made me mad so I was not paying attention when I ran that stop sign and killed three people. It's your fault they are dead.

Or:

The top on my drink was loose, and when it came off I was distracted, and ran a red light, hit a car. It is all the fault of the kid at the fast food place.

Lolz...... beat me to it.

This session is comedy gold.

(01-11-2020 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Soleimani certainly deserved his fate, based on his actions.

And I'm betting that if someone other than Donald Trump had been the president who ordered him killed, you would have been 100% supportive.

Quote:The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

Unproved, and actually quite a reach.

First of all, I’m still waiting to see how the next few months play out as to whether or not it was the right decision. If tensions don’t escalate, then it will have been a very good decision.
And with Iran admitting it mistakenly shot down the plane, I don’t know how you can say it is a reach that the mistake was entirely due to the heightened tensions immediately following the Soleimani assassination and the missile attack in Iraq, which happened the day before.

They mistook an outbound, climbing passenger jet for an inbound, descending cruise missile. That is the equivalent of mistaking a battleship for an avocado. It was either intentional (and that may or may not prove up, depending on whether there was somebody on the passenger manifest that the Iranians wanted dead) or it was a mistake of such proportions that blaming it on any outside factors would be patently absurd.

(01-11-2020 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 05:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You are doing a smashing job of mixing and matching crap there, lad. (and making **** up as well for that matter).

If you stop flapping your wings and think about it you might see.

Not wholly endorsing his takeout means either one does not support him being taken out, or one can live with him still on the run, all things considered. In either case, one is copacetic with his continued actions; that is they have at least a part of them okay with the fact that Soleimani would be walking around, that is they are okay with a person responsible murderer of hundreds, perhaps thousands, US servicemen still bounding about.


You yourself have noted that 'well golly perhaps other reasons exist to not have killed this shitbag'. Not saying you are mad about him being droned, or despondent, just that some part of you sees a reason for a man responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of US servicemen still being able and free to do so.

Not really hard cypher that there. But by god you are fighting that label *even when* you have previously admitted that a part of you can justify his still walking around --- like the paraphrase in the previous paragraph.

An example: I think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and should have gone to prison. I am okay that she wasnt charged. So, some part of me actually supports the proposition that Hillary shouldnt have been charged. Is that too gd hard for you to understand?

Quote: By that thought process, you not calling for his death since his first act means you were copacetic with him living.

What the **** are you spouting here, lad? good grief, there are so many logical issues with your statement there I will just let it stand.....

Quote:It’s a stupid and juvenile argument.

I agree that your comment above certainly is.

Quote: So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

World class flapping now. Look up the term 'proximate cause' lad. It will help you immensely.

Sorry you are having such a conniption fit over the accurate assessment that at least a portion of you is copacetic with Solemaini still running around.

I just think your peddling a bunch of bull**** with this, and you obviously don’t think it is a bunch of bull****.

You must agree that it’s bull**** if you are calling the exact same logic to your apparent copaceticness to any reaction from Iran. Because to fully support that strike, one must be copacetic with any actions that come as a direct relation to it - either direct or indirect.

And he follows it with the 'since everything is connected to everything then if you are fine with MadLibs you are obviously fine with poker chips'.

Comedy gold.

This guy with this is literally tossing in the kitchen sink.

After cleaning up the coffee I snorted onto the keyboard, one without the conniption tango that you are seemingly employing *might* realize that loose connections tend to be zero connections.

At least try the fk to tie it to something germane to the shitbag being offed, why dont you?

No I am not 'copacetic' with some Iranian shooting down a passenger plane; give me some tangible nexus between that action and someone getting droned I might rethink. Your Rube Goldberg construction in time, place, action, and logic doesnt do it.


As an aside, can we be in agreement that when I say 'killed servicemen' it means more than two? Considering your linguistic tango previously where you utterly ignored my previous and repeated use of 'responsible for hundreds, if not thousands' (the hundreds and thousands being pertinent, mind you).

I am getting a little 'finger tired' of having to repeat that ad infinitum, so can we at least agree on that little bit of linguistic shortcut. I would hate to get your knickers twisted up in that lad-parsing again, tbh....

(01-11-2020 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 05:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You are doing a smashing job of mixing and matching crap there, lad. (and making **** up as well for that matter).

If you stop flapping your wings and think about it you might see.

Not wholly endorsing his takeout means either one does not support him being taken out, or one can live with him still on the run, all things considered. In either case, one is copacetic with his continued actions; that is they have at least a part of them okay with the fact that Soleimani would be walking around, that is they are okay with a person responsible murderer of hundreds, perhaps thousands, US servicemen still bounding about.


You yourself have noted that 'well golly perhaps other reasons exist to not have killed this shitbag'. Not saying you are mad about him being droned, or despondent, just that some part of you sees a reason for a man responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of US servicemen still being able and free to do so.

Not really hard cypher that there. But by god you are fighting that label *even when* you have previously admitted that a part of you can justify his still walking around --- like the paraphrase in the previous paragraph.

An example: I think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and should have gone to prison. I am okay that she wasnt charged. So, some part of me actually supports the proposition that Hillary shouldnt have been charged. Is that too gd hard for you to understand?

Quote: By that thought process, you not calling for his death since his first act means you were copacetic with him living.

What the **** are you spouting here, lad? good grief, there are so many logical issues with your statement there I will just let it stand.....

Quote:It’s a stupid and juvenile argument.

I agree that your comment above certainly is.

Quote: So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

World class flapping now. Look up the term 'proximate cause' lad. It will help you immensely.

Sorry you are having such a conniption fit over the accurate assessment that at least a portion of you is copacetic with Solemaini still running around.

I just think your peddling a bunch of bull**** with this, and you obviously don’t think it is a bunch of bull****.

You must agree that it’s bull**** if you are calling the exact same logic to your apparent copaceticness to any reaction from Iran. Because to fully support that strike, one must be copacetic with any actions that come as a direct relation to it - either direct or indirect.

So lad, some yes/no questions.

Do you support fully droning the dirtbag?

Is there any reasonable circumstance in which you would conclude that the action should not have been undertaken?

Easy peasy lad. Two simple yes/no questions'. Hard instructions, I know, so I will repeat them. Yes, or no.

(01-11-2020 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Soleimani certainly deserved his fate, based on his actions.

And I'm betting that if someone other than Donald Trump had been the president who ordered him killed, you would have been 100% supportive.

Quote:The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

Unproved, and actually quite a reach.

First of all, I’m still waiting to see how the next few months play out as to whether or not it was the right decision. If tensions don’t escalate, then it will have been a very good decision.
And with Iran admitting it mistakenly shot down the plane, I don’t know how you can say it is a reach that the mistake was entirely due to the heightened tensions immediately following the Soleimani assassination and the missile attack in Iraq, which happened the day before.

They mistook an outbound, climbing passenger jet for an inbound, descending cruise missile. That is the equivalent of mistaking a battleship for an avocado. It was either intentional (and that may or may not prove up, depending on whether there was somebody on the passenger manifest that the Iranians wanted dead) or it was a mistake of such proportions that blaming it on any outside factors would be patently absurd.

Here is a helpful guide so we are all on the same page. Maybe Fountains can find us a gif with both in them....

I guess that we should blame Trump for the Iranians arresting the British Ambassador.

Or maybe lad can try to argue that one whom supports offing the dirtbag is copacetic with the arrest of the ambassador, through his fun time, space, action, and logic leaps.

Linky to news

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

(01-11-2020 06:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 06:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture. So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

This is the the "See what you made me do" defense. Lots of domestic violence happens under this theory.

It goes somethings like this:

You made me mad so I was not paying attention when I ran that stop sign and killed three people. It's your fault they are dead.

Or:

The top on my drink was loose, and when it came off I was distracted, and ran a red light, hit a car. It is all the fault of the kid at the fast food place.

Lolz...... beat me to it.

This session is comedy gold.

So we should never worry about repercussions of our actions then. So why not nuke North Korea or assassinate any other world leader, since any actions related to the initial response aren’t due to the initial action at all.

Yes, Iran is unquestionably at fault. But do you think, had the initial strike not occurred that killed Soleimani, that they would have fired on that plane?

No wonder you think that anyone who is not 100% supportive of the strike must somehow be a terrorist sympathizer.

(01-11-2020 08:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

Right back at you regarding partisanship.

I am not blaming Trump for the downing of that plane. But do you think Iran would have shot it down if the Soleimani strike hadn’t occurred?

(01-11-2020 09:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 06:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 06:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture. So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

This is the the "See what you made me do" defense. Lots of domestic violence happens under this theory.

It goes somethings like this:

You made me mad so I was not paying attention when I ran that stop sign and killed three people. It's your fault they are dead.

Or:

The top on my drink was loose, and when it came off I was distracted, and ran a red light, hit a car. It is all the fault of the kid at the fast food place.

Lolz...... beat me to it.

This session is comedy gold.

So we should never worry about repercussions of our actions then. So why not nuke North Korea or assassinate any other world leader, since any actions related to the initial response aren’t due to the initial action at all.

Yes, Iran is unquestionably at fault. But do you think, had the initial strike not occurred that killed Soleimani, that they would have fired on that plane?

No wonder you think that anyone who is not 100% supportive of the strike must somehow be a terrorist sympathizer.

Please do tell where I state "anyone who is not 100% supportive of the strike must somehow be a terrorist sympathizer."


I am awaiting your 'yes or no' answers to the 2 questions.

(01-11-2020 09:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 08:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

Right back at you regarding partisanship.

I am not blaming Trump for the downing of that plane. But do you think Iran would have shot it down if the Soleimani strike hadn’t occurred?

Well in that vein, Iran would not have shot down the plane if the Shah had not abdicated in 1979.

You seemingly think that anything in a chain is proximate cause.

I guess we should blame the Shah for Iran's actions in shooting down the plane.

There is a point where some previous link in the chain becomes absolutely unreasonable in trying to pawn off responsibility. Your thrashing here is a picture perfect example.

(01-11-2020 09:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, Iran is unquestionably at fault. But do you think, had the initial strike not occurred that killed Soleimani, that they would have fired on that plane?

Absolutely. The two are unrelated.

Here's the thing. The aircraft had just taken off and was climbing. A cruise missile that was threatening would have been inbound and descending.

Iran is about three times as large as Texas, and Teheran is roughly in the middle. If there were any kind of inbound cruise missile attack, there should be some sort of warning. This was either 1) deliberate and intentional, which I wouldn't put past Iran, or 2) some knob-twisting by an idiot who didn't know what he was doing, or 3) an identification error equivalent to mistaking, as I said above, an avocado for a battleship.

There was absolutely nothing about the flight path of the airliner that should have caused a halfway competent crew to mistake it for a cruise missile or an attack bomber.

(01-11-2020 10:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 09:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 08:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

I've not paid a lot of attention to this discussion, but this comment really very clearly demonstrates 'orange man bad' is the only stance you know.

Regardless of Iran's posture, they control their airspace, their flights and their missiles.

If the US had shot down a domestic airliner minutes we had let take off from our airport after 9/11, I am 100% confident that you wouldn't be blaming Bin Laden.

More specifically, I'm also 100% convinced that if the Texas church hero had accidentally shot a parishioner in addition to the murderer, you would be using that as 'proof' that we need more gun control. That's specifically your argument against GGG's.

My real issue with you is that you have some legitimate arguments... but you're so partisan that you can't make them.

Right back at you regarding partisanship.

I am not blaming Trump for the downing of that plane. But do you think Iran would have shot it down if the Soleimani strike hadn’t occurred?

Well in that vein, Iran would not have shot down the plane if the Shah had not abdicated in 1979.

You seemingly think that anything in a chain is proximate cause.

I guess we should blame the Shah for Iran's actions in shooting down the plane.

There is a point where some previous link in the chain becomes absolutely unreasonable in trying to pawn off responsibility. Your thrashing here is a picture perfect example.

I mean, you’re making my point. There are so many possible repercussions associated with such a bold move, that not being 100% supportive of it doesn’t equate to someone being copacetic with a murder being alive...

Your thrashing about needing to assign a value judgement to someone who might not wholeheartedly agree with this specific military exercise is silly. It’s just as silly as the previous posts from OO regarding being a terrorist sympathizer.

But we won’t agree on this issue it seems, so try and have a good one.

I have read lots of comments about the killing of Soleimani and the subsequent shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger jet, and I've noticed a fairly significant trend.

People who have never served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a mistake and will bring war, and that the downing of the passenger jet was a direct consequence. People who have served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a giant step toward peace and that shooting down the passenger jet was either unrelated or intentional on the part of the Iranians. It's not 100% either way, but there do seem to be two pretty strong trends.

Tanq (who I don't think did serve, so he would be one of the exceptions to the rule) poses an interesting question. There seems to be a tendency in some quarters to posit the killing of Soleimani as the proximate cause of shooting down the passenger jet, but to this point there has been no showing of any causal link, much less proximate causation.

(01-11-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have read lots of comments about the killing of Soleimani and the subsequent shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger jet, and I've noticed a fairly significant trend.

People who have never served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a mistake and will bring war, and that the downing of the passenger jet was a direct consequence. People who have served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a giant step toward peace and that shooting down the passenger jet was either unrelated or intentional on the part of the Iranians. It's not 100% either way, but there do seem to be two pretty strong trends.

Tanq (who I don't think did serve, so he would be one of the exceptions to the rule) poses an interesting question. There seems to be a tendency in some quarters to posit the killing of Soleimani as the proximate cause of shooting down the passenger jet, but to this point there has been no showing of any causal link, much less proximate causation.

I am another exception.

Saw an article saying that the majority of current enlistees are children of veterans. If this trend continues, I can see an even greater divide developing between veterans and nonveterans.

(01-11-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have read lots of comments about the killing of Soleimani and the subsequent shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger jet, and I've noticed a fairly significant trend.

People who have never served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a mistake and will bring war, and that the downing of the passenger jet was a direct consequence. People who have served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a giant step toward peace and that shooting down the passenger jet was either unrelated or intentional on the part of the Iranians. It's not 100% either way, but there do seem to be two pretty strong trends.

Tanq (who I don't think did serve, so he would be one of the exceptions to the rule) poses an interesting question. There seems to be a tendency in some quarters to posit the killing of Soleimani as the proximate cause of shooting down the passenger jet, but to this point there has been no showing of any causal link, much less proximate causation.

I think the killing of the dirtbag was a step in an ongoing war; one that has been waged in the military sense in a one way direction for 35 years.

He was an enemy combatant fully engaged in actions against the United States --- and had been for decades.

Trump did something no other US administration has done --- he has acknowledged that war; and by doing so has stated that he has leveled the playing field where the US is empowered to strike militarily at the actions Iran has *done* for 30 years. He disempowered their asymmetric aspect with one fell swoop. You kill US soldiers --- you actually might get droned.

And people are gnashing their teeth that 'ooohhh..... Iran might strike back'. Good grief, this particular dirtbag has been striking for 25+ years, and to the tune of (more than 2) US soldiers.

The funny thing is that some quarters cannot even acknowledge that when you say (Mr Peabody voice on) 'well perhaps we shouldnt have done that' (/Mr Peabody voice off) they are *in fact* stating 'perhaps we should have let this dirtbag, who was responsible for killing massive numbers of US soldiers, keep doing just that'.

The entire Democratic caucus cant even to seem to acknowledge the guy was a dirtbag; on others cant even acknowledge that saying 'perhaps we shouldnt have done that' is precisely the same thing as saying 'perhaps we should have let the dirtbag continue'.

Its like their minds refuse to recognize the binary nature of 'yep lets take him off the table / and nope, lets let him continue'. Its not some asinine weighing function, it is binary in nature.

Look I recognize that lad is scared (or parroting) the 'ooohhhhh they could escalate, and maybe it wasnt such a good thing'. There is a part there that acknowledges that in their mind it is more beneficial for a dirtbag responsible for killing multiple hundreds of US servicemen keep doing so, and they cannot even articulate that within their schema there is some support for him continuing to do so.

This is like watching cats jump crazily in a room size shallow sauna bath.