Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, eveln said:

 ]

 

edit: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7381641/Chinese-woman-working-Australia-sacked-saying-Hong-Kong-protesters-executed.html

" A Chinese saleswoman working in Queensland has been fired for posting online that Hong Kong civil rights protesters 'should all get executed by firing squad'.

Cairns-based helicopter firm Nautilus Aviation fired Chinese sales agent Coco Souter after she made a private social media post saying Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters 'should all get executed by firing squad'. 

Her sacking comes as tensions reach boiling point between pro-China and pro-Hong Kong protesters in Australia and overseas. 

The former tourism worker made the post - written in Mandarin - on Chinese social media platform WeChat."

I don't want to pay for the Cairns Post, but found this in The Daily Mail ... lordy ! Did not realise she was talking firing squad ... that is how you say a bit fucken rash of her maybe firing is okay 😉

 

The bit that gets me here is how did they know about the post. The post is obviously not something any company wants to be associated with but I wonder how it was brought to light. 

9 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

So anyway, I happened to wonder if Leo's opinion of Boris Johnson is similar to his opinion of Trump... 

 

Is that on record yet? 

 

Seems similar in defense of his tactics so far

Edited by fliptopia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Well... Trump does seem to have better taste in women... Or Johnson is a bit hard up...  🙂

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

The bit that gets me here is how did they know about the post. The post is obviously not something any company wants to be associated with but I wonder how it was brought to light. 

 

" 'I posted some words I should not have posted, but that's my personal social media.'

Ms Souter blamed a pro-Hong Kong protester for notifying her boss about her post. ...  "  << from linky

 

According to my friend, due to the fact of We Chat being the 'go to' for Chinese customers it was bound to have been discovered ...

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, eveln said:

 

" 'I posted some words I should not have posted, but that's my personal social media.'

Ms Souter blamed a pro-Hong Kong protester for notifying her boss about her post. ...  "  << from linky

 

According to my friend, due to the fact of We Chat being the 'go to' for Chinese customers it was bound to have been discovered ...

 

I would assume she was dobbed in by someone but one never knows these days... I haven't looked at we chat for many years. That's if it's the thing I'm thinking of. It seemed to be a messaging platform back then. 

 

There's not really such a thing as personal social media these days. You are just making your thoughts public. 

Edited by fliptopia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eveln said:

 well geez, a bit hard to ask headless corpses much of anything really. So you be making rash assumptions there Nich...

I don't think we'd be asking the headless, TBH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And yeah.  My limited understanding is that someone showed someone showed someone on wechat. 

I'm pretty forgiving from a free speech POV, in terms of what people say in private when not associated with the company.  But calling for people to die is a hard one to walk back.  Probably goes to the heart of this whole PC thing - casual racism can have some pretty serious underpinnings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fliptopia said:

 

There's not really such a thing as personal social media these days.

Seriously, from my comparatively Luddite seat here, I would have said that it was from day one a gross assumption that anything online could be considered private. And that of course stems from the idea of even writing a diary in hard back form could be looking for trouble

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nich... said:

I don't think we'd be asking the headless, TBH.

Well of course not. They were made headless by the pc mobs of the day, yeah ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ronald Crump will nuke the shit out of that Hurricane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

[ I just know I'm gonna regret this, but ] ....he's dead already @twinair If he ever had ' nuking days ' they're definitely over now

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Unless we are talking TsarBomba forget nukes - that thing would spit a typical sub-megaton nuke out for breakfast  🙂

 

In all seriousness though, that is one HELL of a storm, not sure I've even seen one as large.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 7:49 PM, eveln said:

[ I just know I'm gonna regret this, but ] ....he's dead already @twinair If he ever had ' nuking days ' they're definitely over now

No need for regret, I was being fecetious 🙂

  • Yes Sir! Very atomic! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. To return to the debate....

 

The Insider does not take sides, just reports, Trump is fucking up on most all sides:

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/consumers-retailers-manufacturers-farmers-hammered-by-trump-tariffs-2019-8-1028488313?utm_source=quora&amp;utm_medium=referral

 

He's a liability... but I guess, unless he gets in the way of the gunfire on the streets that he is being NRA controlled to ignore, he is still your loony tunes president - hopefully for not much longer - the damage he is causing is incalculable.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this belongs in here...

 

Remember that tanker that the Brits seized off Gibraltar in the belief it was heading for Syria in defiance of sanctions ?

 

The Iranians promised, pretty please, that it was not going to Syria and for some strange reason the apes in Gibraltar believed them - God alone knows why.

 

Now, after turning its transponder off it has popped up a couple of miles off the coast of the Lebanon - Syria does not have much of a coast, easier to off-load in the Lebanon.

 

The U.S. is understandably seething, Britain has egg on its face and Iran is doubtless laughing, as would Syria.

 

Thing is though, it's crude oil, so if the Americans want to put it to the Syrians, why don't they bomb the refinery?

 

Well, they can't really, across Syria, on both sides, there are something like 3,000 make-shift refineries. Terrible places but they are sort of refining oil - probably down to diesel or rather nasty petrol but it will do.

 

It gets weirder, Syria actually has its own oil reserves, not massive but it is a nett producer, when they are not killing each other.

 

So why do they even need supposedly $19M of crude, and just where did that tanker come from in the first place ?

 

It obviously did not transit Suez so it had to have sailed clean around the Cape of Good Hope and I assume being the size it is, it most likely had to refuel to make that journey.

 

There are several place on the West Coast of Africa that would likely supply fuel at a premium and say nothing but it's a long trip, I really would have thought the all-seeing eyes above might have taken notice of a tanker leaving embargoed Iran and done something rather more substantial about it before it entered the Med.

 

Someone was caught with their pants down.

 

Being the Marines took the tanker and would have made a thorough search we do not have to go all conspiracy theory and think it might be carrying a nuke or something outlandish - I do believe it is carrying crude, but I'm still trying to figure out why.

 

Perhaps the oil that Syria has is not well suited to lubricating oils, that could be a reason, but that's a heck of a lot of lube and I don't know of any case of that with Arabian oil - funnily enough it is the case with Bass Strait oil, but not with North West Shelf.

 

Whatever, the U.S has a dilemma and to stay in tune with this thread I really do hope that Trump does not lose the plot.

 

The only real way to stop that oil getting to those makeshift refineries is going to be either sink the tanker or mount repeated airstrikes on the vehicles moving the oil to the refineries.

 

I do not think the Med needs a big oil spill at the more dormant end of its expanse, nor do I think the Americans, who are supposed to be pulling out of Syria will be too happy about having to pot shot tankers - smacks of the Ho Chi Min trail.

 

The only other possibility is to destroy or at least cripple the presumably Lebanese port the tanker is planning to dock at.

 

That is called escalation, the last thing America wants in the region but it would delight the Iranians.

 

Mr Trump has a big quandary on his hands, I hope he listens for once to his advisers, what's left of them, or to the Pentagon, because this is the sort of issue that could quickly spin out of control.

 

Personally I'd just let the oil go.

 

It's not going to change the war enough to matter, but stopping any further shipments would be a priority.

 

However America will be left with egg on its face and I'm not convinced Trump would take that kindly.

 

I'm sure he'll blame the Brits, so would I, someone dropped the ball, but that cannot be undone - what he does next will determine just how much he really does understand Foreign Policy and Arabs in particular.

 

Oh, I should mention, Israel is not far south of where that tanker is.

 

They would be most annoyed if he does decide to sink it, pollution they do not need.

 

Perhaps they have some innovative ideas on how to deal with it, I don't at the moment beyond let it go but I rather doubt Trump will do that.

 

Crunch time Mr President, what are you going to do ?

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need to do anything. All he has to do sis keep squeezing.

 

His Iran strategy was correct. It still is.

 

The argument that Iran won't lie, cheat or steal its way to the nuclear bomb while lying, cheating and stealing their way to the nuclear bomb for 30 years, just because they signed the JCPOa is ab argument by the same cooler heads that prevailed in 1933 when what Hitler was going to do was written in stone, but they still hoped he could be turned by bribes and platitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

 

I'm not really convinced he has an Iranian strategy mate.

 

I'm not sure there were too many cooler heads around in '33 either - a lot of ignorance, yes.

 

If we believe the Iranians, a dubious argument I admit, they have the capacity now to spin up new centrifuges that can take uranium above 20% refinement - from there it really is just a tedious, and somewhat dangerous, path to get to 90%, which is weapons grade.

 

They SAY they have not thus far done so, that I do doubt, if they have it they will use it.

 

I tend to think Iran is well overdue for another revolution, they are after all not Arabs but Persians, this nonsense has gone on more than long enough but America basically seeded it by backing the Shah and by extension Savat.

 

What a tangled web we weave...

 

BTW on this I do agree, take the egg-on-face, but he may not see it that way, his ego is very big and it is coming on election year.

 

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

I'm not really convinced he has an Iranian strategy mate.

 

 

Well if he doesn't have one, it's still a better strategy than Obama's and the rest of the world now.

 

1 hour ago, chrisg said:

I'm not sure there were too many cooler heads around in '33 either - a lot of ignorance, yes.

 

 

And every day for 20 years before the JCPOA was not head in the sand vis a vis Iran and the bomb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree - Obama had them on hold - that was the best available just then.

 

It cuts both ways, the JCPOA could only deal with the present, not the past, they obtained the best deal possible, now Trump has torn it up and Iwould expect that the centrifuges will spin up outside Tehran.

 

Iran is currently a loose canon, that Trump let loose - how the hell is he going to get them back in the box !?!

 

More to come... 🙂

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chrisg said:

Obama had them on hold

 

Peace for our time.

 

Jesus Chris. Think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking.

 

It is not peaceful at all to have the Mullahs obtain weaponised uranium which they are now threatening to achieve  - frankly right now unless direct action, such as another raid similar to the Israeli one on the reactor in Baghdad, is undertaken, they will achieve it.

 

It's scary enough that Pakistan has nukes, we can be moderately certain that they will not use them, India would nuke them into the stone age, there are no such assurances with the crazed dick heads in Tehran.

 

What Obama did was not an analogue of Chamberlain at all, it stopped the Iranians from further enrichment, made them show that they actually were developing nuclear power, not nuclear weapons - you do not need 90% enriched uranium for a power reactor, well sub 20% is perfectly acceptable. It was still not nice, you could make a very dirty device with low enriched uranium, think Chernobyl, but it is below the level at which uranium goes into a sustained fission reaction that explodes.

 

About the only way I can make sense of Trump's actions is that he is goading the Israelis into a repeat of Baghdad. But that does not make any sense at all, the Baghdad raid was a long shot, Tehran is just out of reach unless Israel were to use its Jericho missiles with conventional warheads. They wont do that, the world would condemn them for being only the second nation to ever use IRBMs, Hitler was the first.

 

Trump is already dealing with two undeclared wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, which he manages to keep off the front pages most of the time with his antics, he's pushing the edge on engaging Iran particularly in the Straits of Hormuz.

 

I suppose as usual he thinks there is a deal to be done, there isn't, you cannot deal with lunatics and that is what the Mullahs are.

 

To take it to the extreme he's actually fighting the wrong wars anyway, not actually his fault he inherited both, but the U.S really should just get out of both places, neither are winnable and the longer they stay the more they are hated. In that regard they are in fact analogues of Vietnam but taking war to Iran would be very different.

 

I've not been to Tehran in a very long time but I do know a great many Iranians who have left never to return under the present regime. There is a massive undercurrent of resentment against the Mullahs in that country, it would not take very much to ferment an uprising if handled properly.

 

It is the only sensible war to engage in, but instead he stays bogged down in the other two and despite assurances has not been able to properly exit Syria either.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I am thinking.

 

Quite clearly you’re not.

 

Is the best time for a war now or when they have the bomb? Did the JCPOA stop Iran cheating and stealing their way to the bomb? Will the Islamolunatics give up the bomb once they have it?

 

And while I appreciate the idea of destabilising Iran by feeding weapons and Intel to internal anti-regime ethnic groups, the reality is that even if this were a good idea, it’s one that should have been started in the first Bush term.

 

We’re out of time and the US has bunker busters. So does Israel thanks to Rafael Rocks, though not in the same class.

 

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You REALLY want to play THAT high stakes of poker !?!

 

I can assure you I don't, neither did the Israelis when they took out the Baghdad reactor.

 

I am not usually inclined to incite war at any time but now is not just any time. Trump is inciting those loony tunes idiots into becoming more and more determined to get their way and get a bomb - one they are quite happy, in their loony tunes minds, to use.

 

In most cases I'm not THAT uncomfortable about a country acquiring a nuclear capability, for power. Japan has many reactors, unfortunately including Fukushima, but no aspirations to obtain nuclear weapons. I was not really that bothered if Brazil decided to go nuclear, they have the capability, until their latest nut-case leader came along. But overall I'd rather that countries either went for thorium, which I do sincerely believe is achievable rather than re-invent uranium cycle, or explore new renewable possibilities.

 

With Iran the gloves are off, they are no longer even really pretending that they are not working towards a bomb - time to take them out, not wait until they have the damned thing, or even close.

 

It's been a lunatic world ever since Hiroshima, putting the genie back in the bottle has proven impossible, but Iran is a most unusual case, a stable regime can be re-established there, if done properly.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, chrisg said:

You REALLY want to play THAT high stakes of poker !?!

 

It’s 1938, right now.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×