• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Britain forms plan for Gulf evacuation in event of war with Iran

#61
Nope. Not digging a hole, or out of a hole.

You made a claim, without a shred of supporting evidence. I made a counter-claim, without a shred of evidence. You demand I produce evidence whilst evade offering any of your own. What's below, if anything, supports my own position that the wikileaks exposure has not made a blind bit of difference.
Sigh...

claim
   /kleɪm/ Show Spelled[kleym] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance.
2.
to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession, etc.); assert one's right to: to claim payment for services.
3.
to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4.
to require as due or fitting: to claim respect.

sug·ges·tion
   /səgˈdʒɛstʃən, sə-/ Show Spelled[suhg-jes-chuhn, suh-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of suggesting.
2.
the state of being suggested.
3.
something suggested, as a piece of advice: We made the suggestion that she resign.
4.
a slight trace: He speaks with a suggestion of a foreign accent.
5.
the calling up in the mind of one idea by another by virtue of some association or of some natural connection between the ideas.


Obviously you are confused as to the difference between these two terms.

I made a suggestion. You made a claim.


No, you have to spell out the evidence on two elements, your 2+2 introduction.

First, you have to demonstrate that there has actually been a change in policy by either the Iranians, the Arab Gulf states or anybody for that matter in the past couple of months. And then, secondly, you have to demonstrate that that change is due to the wikileaks exposure.

You have failed to provide evidence of that change, and thus your failure on the second element is moot.
More avoidance wibble... the basis of my suggestion was on the evacuation plan, not the iranian state of mind but rather the *perception* of the Iranian state of mind.

If that is not the case, then why the evacuation plan? Why now? And if you think I'm going to let you off the hook proving your assertion that the Iranians learned *nothing* from that leak, you are wrong.

The onus is still on you to provide proof of that.


As has been pointed out by others, and is common sense to most others, all responsible states have up-to-date evacuation plans for everywhere. Just in case. To suggest that the last review was conducted in the 1990s is quite bizarre and clearly demonstrates the lack of hard information beyond propaganda wibble offered by the Irish Independent and the Telegpraph. Remember, in 2003 'we' attacked a nearby state that allegedly had WMD. Do you really believe nobody revisited the plans at that time?
So two newspapers with stories that corroborate each other cannot be trusted as a viable source of information and clearly their must have been a plan since the 90s? Where else would I find this "hard" information you refer to?

Shrug, you got me.

Do I believe nobody visited the plans for evacuation? Have you ever visited a government establishment or met a government employee? I don't know about the UK but if human nature is human nature your Department of Motor Vehicles visits are just as crappy as ours.

That said, if you think for a moment it's the government that gets the sharpest tacks in the box to work for them then the UK is apparently far superior to any other nation I've been to.

Do I think that anyone in the government other than the military thought to update evacuation plans due to the incursion. No. I do not.

Which shows how 'surprised' they were by the 'revelation' that the Gulf Sunni Arabs don't like them and would like to see them brought down a peg or three.
Kind of like how surprised all the other statesmen acted when revelations about them came to light? Like that? You really seem to suffer from black helicopter syndrome. That is, thinking that these countries and governments entities are so high speed that they would of course know any and all intel about them.

And you admonish me about grey matter and reality?

Nope. The onus lies with YOU to prove your claim that there is a causal link between these events. It is not possible for me to prove a non-existant causal link is non-existant.
Do you even understand what it is you wrote here? I am not asking you to prove that I am wrong. I am asking you to prove your assertion that Iran had previous knowledge of all information that was released regarding them and learned absolutely nothing new.

No. You claim there is an elephant in the room because a couple of newspapers with a record of anti-Iranian propaganda rhetoric have published a couple of stories shortly after wikileaks.
You point me to a website that reports news that no one sees as propaganda.

Despite your abysmal attempt to present evidence (clearly you're not aware of what evidence is), in the spirit of good trans-Atlantic relations, I offer this:
I understand you made this statement without full grasp of the difference between suggestion and claim so I forgive you.

One typically does not offer proof of concept for a suggestion but I did show that I am not alone in thinking what I posted. This was the only intention of the links.

So the UK updates it's ME evacuation plan, presumably due to perceived possible regional instability vis a vis Iran very shortly after the release of secret diplomatic cables detailing not only confirmation of neighbors intention towards Iran but also the level and frequency of their requests made known, and you are claiming that none of this has anything to do with those leaks?

For clarity sake, is that what you are saying?

Publically available information that a senior representative of a Sunni Gulf Arab state had gone on record for a military strike on Iran BEFORE wikileaks exposure.
Not a poker player are you?

Just because you were deaf to this information, doesn't mean to say the Iranians were equally deaf, or that it doesn't exist.
I wouldn't say I was deaf to anything. It's simply irrelevant to what I am saying.

You either grasp what I was saying and are simply staying with your counter argument or really do not grasp what it is I am saying.

I'll try to bring it to a level that will be clear to you. To summarize:

Dick and Jane. Lets call the Arabs Dick, and the Persians, Jane.

Jane knows Dick does not like her. Dick knows that Jane does not like him.
Dick says that someone should beat up Jane, in front of Jane. <-- Part you are referring to.
Dick talks with Hillary behind Jane's back and writes the conversation in her diary.
Julian steals Hillary's diary <-- Like what I did there? and shows Jane everything the Dick and Hillary talked about, especially about what they want to do to Jane.

Now the two million pound question...

Did Jane learn anything new from reading her diary? <--- My assertion, quite possibly, if at the very least shows Jane the dedication to seeing that happen and the level of effort. All of which is usable information.

Now does Jane have to do anything for Dick to be suspicious of what Jane may do? Does Heath have to worry because he has a special relationship with Hillary and follows her on picnics?

Hope this helped clarify a bit.
 
#62
Sigh...

[snip]lashings of less than average middle-american wibble tarted up as intellectual maturity[/snip]
&#8194; &#8194;
More avoidance wibble... the basis of my suggestion was on the evacuation plan, not the iranian state of mind but rather the *perception* of the Iranian state of mind.
Sigh...

So, now you're claiming the alleged 'new' evacuation plan is a product of a "*perception* of the Iranian state of mind."

Still waiting for you to try and talk your way out of where the causal link to wikileaks comes from that you wanted us all to believe exists - just like 2+2.

If that is not the case, then why the evacuation plan? Why now? And if you think I'm going to let you off the hook proving your assertion that the Iranians learned *nothing* from that leak, you are wrong.
You will notice that I, and other posters doubt the veracity and accuracy of the reporting in respect of this being a 'new' plan based upon some new information.

The onus is still on you to provide proof of that.
Proof of what?

I've already conceeded, a couple of pages back, that there must be something (probably bucketfuls) of data in the million or so of documents (to be) released that is new to the public and to Iran.

So, what exactly are you still trying to hook me with?

So two newspapers with stories that corroborate each other cannot be trusted as a viable source of information and clearly their must have been a plan since the 90s? Where else would I find this "hard" information you refer to?
Not ssure what you're trying to say here. Please retype in plain English. However, it is quite common for a news outlet to publish an inaccurate story and for another outlet to copy the core content. A falsehood can be repeated a million times and still remains a falsehood. All that differs is that shed loads of lame readers decide to believe the falsehood because they've seen it in print.

Start analysing texts that you read and compare it to common sense and your real world experience before you believe it to be 100% kosher.

I have not seen a report that the US is renewing its Gulf evacuation plan. Does that mean...
... a) they don't have a plan,
... b) they don't feel their current plan needs updating,
... c) they don't give a toss about their citizens,
... d) they don't see an increased threat that demands a reworking of the plan, or
... e) no lame newsprint editorial feels the desire to print a lame story?

[snip]more lashings of less than average middle-american wibble tarted up as intellectual maturity[/snip]
Not a poker player are you?
No. And, you may have noticed, we're not playing poker. So?

So the UK updates it's ME evacuation plan, presumably due to perceived possible regional instability vis a vis Iran very shortly after the release of secret diplomatic cables detailing not only confirmation of neighbors intention towards Iran but also the level and frequency of their requests made known, and you are claiming that none of this has anything to do with those leaks?
The onus is upon you to prove they did, not for me to prove they didn't.

I'll try to bring it to a level that will be clear to you. To summarize:

Dick and Jane. Lets call the Arabs Dick, and the Persians, Jane.

Jane knows Dick does not like her. Dick knows that Jane does not like him.
Dick says that someone should beat up Jane, in front of Jane. <-- Part you are referring to.
Dick talks with Hillary behind Jane's back and writes the conversation in her diary.
Julian steals Hillary's diary <-- Like what I did there? and shows Jane everything the Dick and Hillary talked about, especially about what they want to do to Jane.

Now the two million pound question...

Did Jane learn anything new from reading her diary? <--- My assertion, quite possibly, if at the very least shows Jane the dedication to seeing that happen and the level of effort. All of which is usable information.

Now does Jane have to do anything for Dick to be suspicious of what Jane may do? Does Heath have to worry because he has a special relationship with Hillary and follows her on picnics?

Hope this helped clarify a bit.
I understood your thesis from the first moment. I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence that all these random dots in your head are actually joined. There is no doubt you believe they are, but where's your evidence (not suspicion) that they are?
 
#63
Everyone is whipping out sticks - how about a carrot first?

Iimpliment UN Resolution 242, giving the Palestinians a home land and see how this changes the geopolitics of the region?
This is now a wildly unrealistic goal as clearly no POTUS will stick their neck out on this let alone timid Barry, the Israelis will never agree to anything much beyond a bigger less frequently bombed version of bricked in Gaza, our despotic Arab allies don't want an insidiously democratic Hamastan in West bank and the post-Arafat Pals have about the same level of political cohesion as the Compton Bloods and Crips. But how do you think such a miracle of diplomacy would tame Qom?

Ankara might be delighted but Qom would be deprived of it's favorite rallying cry in the Umma that they both seek to lead. The short term result would likely be more trouble from Qom as it seeks other causes not to mention the Takfiri who would raise a Jihad against any such an apostate state making peace with the hated Joos.

The game has gone too far beyond a solution that might have worked in the 70s or 80s, the Pals' problem will probably not end for decades and then not well.
 
#64
White City & Ghost US get a room together for gods sake your like an old couple.
 

Similar threads

Top