historian said:
Maybe Hinduism is not as bad but Hindus persecute Christian's ruthlessly, especially Indians who convert. They can be as intolerant as anyone else.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
fubar said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
Air superiority or air supremacy? They are not the same.
Air superiority does not rule out Iranian air force attacks.
ShooterTX said:BearFan33 said:historian said:
Yes every faith has the good and the bad. The difference with Christianity is that the bad Christian's are violating the commandments of God while bad Muslims are obeying the commands of Muhammad. Strictly speaking, Muslims don't worship Muhammad as a god but they treat him like one to the point of attacking and killing people who say certain things about him (i.e. that he was a pedophile even though he married a young child) or publishes a cartoon image of him. It is about the deeds as much as the words.
Christianity is distinct from all other religions. Only Christianity preaches love, toleration, charity for all, and genuine compassion (not the fake variety that's so common these days). Other faiths have a strong emphasis on hatred of others and are generally selective in their compassion and charity. This is most obvious with Islam since its history is soaked in the blood of innocents.
Hindus aren't bad and are actually discouraged to convert someone to their faith. As a faith it is compatible with a peaceful world. Islam, not so much.
Nothing really compares to the horrific evil that is Islam.
Another example:
Experts are baffled pic.twitter.com/BbhXteQyfv
— Jason Premo • Acclaim Aerospace (@JasonPremoMFG) March 2, 2026
Show me any Christian theologian who teaches that rape is acceptable.... only Islam is that evil.
ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
I've rarely if ever seen that. More often I've seen them integrate a day for Jesus in their weekly worship cycle. I've seen Christmas and Easter celebrations in Hindu Temples. Unlike the three Abrahamic religions, exclusivity of deity doesn't exist. That's why Buddhist ideals even get wrapped into Hinduism. There is no one path or window,historian said:
Maybe Hinduism is not as bad but Hindus persecute Christian's ruthlessly, especially Indians who convert. They can be as intolerant as anyone else.
Fair question. But I fear as it's investigated it may have been US operators.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
So is Kuwait or Israel going to pay for the hundred million dollar plane they shot down?
Or do the American tax payers just eat it like a bunch of hapless cuckolds?
ATL Bear said:The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
So is Kuwait or Israel going to pay for the hundred million dollar plane they shot down?
Or do the American tax payers just eat it like a bunch of hapless cuckolds?
Fair question. But I fear as it's investigated it may have been US operators.
Defense contractors rn pic.twitter.com/4NPd8uUlcW
— Red Panda Koala (@RedPandaKoala) March 2, 2026
The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
So is Kuwait or Israel going to pay for the hundred million dollar plane they shot down?
Or do the American tax payers just eat it like a bunch of hapless cuckolds?
fubar said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
Air superiority or air supremacy? They are not the same.
Air superiority does not rule out Iranian air force attacks.
The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
So is Kuwait or Israel going to pay for the hundred million dollar plane they shot down?
Or do the American tax payers just eat it like a bunch of hapless cuckolds?
Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
So is Kuwait or Israel going to pay for the hundred million dollar plane they shot down?
Or do the American tax payers just eat it like a bunch of hapless cuckolds?
$300 million. 94 million x 3. Zero chance AIPAC employees are going to submit an expense report for that.
Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Our side has claimed that the IDF has achieved air superiority. If the Iranian Air Force is shooting down F-15s in Kuwaiti airspace, that clearly is not the case.
That was a friendly fire incident, unfortunately. Iran can't even shoot down the planes operating in its own airspace.
So is Kuwait or Israel going to pay for the hundred million dollar plane they shot down?
Or do the American tax payers just eat it like a bunch of hapless cuckolds?
There is definitely going to be hell to pay over this...
FLBear5630 said:Forest Bueller III said:Realitybites said:
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4418568/three-us-f-15s-involved-in-friendly-fire-incident-in-kuwait-pilots-safe/
Glad the pilots are safe, but the past decade or so has made it quite clear that .gov will lie to advance a narrative. Whether it is Bondi/Patel/Bongino lying about Epstein, the previous administration lying about 2020 and Covid, or the Army trying to cover up Pat Tillman's friendly fire death as well as numerous other things I do wonder if this actually was friendly fire.
Centcom has every incentive to call this friendly fire if the Iranians - particularly if Iranian pilots - were responsible.
There have been MANY times imo when the official narrative did not match reality, from both the left and the right.
This post is 100% correct. That said it may have been friendly fire, but if it weren't there are many incentives to claim it was.
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Hegseth: No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don't waste time or lives. As the president warned, an effort of this scope will include casualties. War is hell and always… pic.twitter.com/7Zpg2UkcrO
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 2, 2026
Forest Bueller III said:FLBear5630 said:Forest Bueller III said:Realitybites said:
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4418568/three-us-f-15s-involved-in-friendly-fire-incident-in-kuwait-pilots-safe/
Glad the pilots are safe, but the past decade or so has made it quite clear that .gov will lie to advance a narrative. Whether it is Bondi/Patel/Bongino lying about Epstein, the previous administration lying about 2020 and Covid, or the Army trying to cover up Pat Tillman's friendly fire death as well as numerous other things I do wonder if this actually was friendly fire.
Centcom has every incentive to call this friendly fire if the Iranians - particularly if Iranian pilots - were responsible.
There have been MANY times imo when the official narrative did not match reality, from both the left and the right.
This post is 100% correct. That said it may have been friendly fire, but if it weren't there are many incentives to claim it was.
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Maybe so.
But, if not friendly fire, then we do not have air superiority as we claim. Iran would know they can capably shoot down our fighters.
All that said, I do believe the message that it is friendly fire. I do not believe Iran can regularly shoot down our jet fighters.
FLBear5630 said:
My logic, but I am sure we will soon hear that we should not be discussing. The biggest event in the Middle East since 1945 and we should only say Thank You...
Forest Bueller III said:FLBear5630 said:Forest Bueller III said:Realitybites said:
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4418568/three-us-f-15s-involved-in-friendly-fire-incident-in-kuwait-pilots-safe/
Glad the pilots are safe, but the past decade or so has made it quite clear that .gov will lie to advance a narrative. Whether it is Bondi/Patel/Bongino lying about Epstein, the previous administration lying about 2020 and Covid, or the Army trying to cover up Pat Tillman's friendly fire death as well as numerous other things I do wonder if this actually was friendly fire.
Centcom has every incentive to call this friendly fire if the Iranians - particularly if Iranian pilots - were responsible.
There have been MANY times imo when the official narrative did not match reality, from both the left and the right.
This post is 100% correct. That said it may have been friendly fire, but if it weren't there are many incentives to claim it was.
I think friendly fire is not a message the Pentagon wants out there. I see no advantages to that message.
Maybe so.
But, if not friendly fire, then we do not have air superiority as we claim. Iran would know they can capably shoot down our fighters.
All that said, I do believe the message that it is friendly fire. I do not believe Iran can regularly shoot down our jet fighters.
fubar said:FLBear5630 said:
My logic, but I am sure we will soon hear that we should not be discussing. The biggest event in the Middle East since 1945 and we should only say Thank You...
I'm also a USAF veteran, and I say thank you to the airmen, sailors and soldiers who are fighting for us. I have high confidence in our military's preparation and ability. I wish every American in theater the best and hope for all a safe return home. Don't we all?
With that said, I have doubts that this war has been thoroughly thought through by our civilian leaders. I don't know what our objectives are, and I don't know why we're doing this now. I'm also concerned that this might explode into something much bigger.
Honest discussion is good. Keep it up.
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 2, 2026
In a major speech on nuclear weapons, Macron says that France will increase its number of nuclear weapons.
He also says that France will no longer disclose the number of nukes it has, and adds:
“To be free, we have to be feared” pic.twitter.com/4spixLj7Ui
NOW - Pro-government rallies grow larger on the streets of Tehran: "No submission, no surrender. WAR WITH AMERICA!" pic.twitter.com/HErexbLDxm
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 2, 2026
Mitch Blood Green said:Danielsjackson114 said:
I hate it, but Iranian leadership has to go. They contribute nothing to the world.
What does them sucking have to do with us?
Trump won't rule out sending US troops into Iran 'if necessary'- tells The Post 'I don't care about polling' https://t.co/00lrdCjdIQ pic.twitter.com/tTyiXVQHSo
— New York Post (@nypost) March 2, 2026
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange posts its biggest daily gains since April 2020
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) March 2, 2026
BearFan33 said:
This is what I have gathered from X postings
Stated military objectives are to
1 remove missile/drone making
2 destroy nuclear making stuff (I thought this was already done)
3 make it so Iran can't hurt its neighbors
Unstated goals
1 make a bunch of money for defense companies and politicians like Lindsay Lue
2 Regime change
3 Make Israel happy
They are saying that once 1-3 are done, so is the military operation.
Personally I'll give Trump points for courage in dealing with a festering problem that others have only provided lip service too or worse supported (Obama). I do not support boots on the ground so once 1-3 is done we should be too. I'm Ok with a few CIA types, but no regular ground soldiers. If Israel wants to put boots there, that's up to them.
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 2, 2026
Trump said he wouldn’t rule out sending U.S. ground troops into Iran "if they were necessary," adding, “I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground — like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’
"I don’t say it," and suggested the… pic.twitter.com/9OrePA6hV7
BREAKING: Pentagon announces all 11 Iranian military vessels in the Gulf of Oman have sunk.
— Polymarket (@Polymarket) March 2, 2026
boognish_bear said:Trump won't rule out sending US troops into Iran 'if necessary'- tells The Post 'I don't care about polling' https://t.co/00lrdCjdIQ pic.twitter.com/tTyiXVQHSo
— New York Post (@nypost) March 2, 2026
The_barBEARian said:boognish_bear said:Trump won't rule out sending US troops into Iran 'if necessary'- tells The Post 'I don't care about polling' https://t.co/00lrdCjdIQ pic.twitter.com/tTyiXVQHSo
— New York Post (@nypost) March 2, 2026
Great! So we are throwing away congress for Israel!
Looks like open borders are back on the menu boys!!!
Mothra said:boognish_bear said:Mothra said:boognish_bear said:The likely new Supreme Leader of Iran when they vote in 40 days or so will be a man who just saw Israel & the US murder his father, his mother, his wife, and his 1 year old daughter. Really think he's going to love the US?
— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) March 1, 2026
I think the question is, do we allow him to stay in power? Or do we keep degrading Iran's military to the point that an uprising can occur, and overthrow the mullahs? That seems to be the end game, according to the reports I;ve read. We are targeting their military infrastructure.
Has anyone in the cabinet said that is the plan here?
No, and I agree, that is a problem. I am referencing reports I read on the BBC.
On Saturday, President Trump released a statement laying out clear objectives to the American people for Operation Epic Fury.
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) March 2, 2026
Let me reiterate them:
Destroy the Iranian regime’s missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.
Annihilate the Iranian regime’s Navy.… https://t.co/HPi9af6Q3i
