Me

This is for the people in my friends list who shared weirdly-colourised photos of fictitious veterans in Times Square holding slogans of non-words using their seven-fingered hands. You were shouting "Hi I'm a gullible mark" all over your Facebook. The internet remembers forever. Probably will be fine though

So you know how so many scams start with a stupidly transparent hook, and most people are like "what kind of idiot believes that is for real?"

And it's a filter because the scammers don't want you, they need to obtain THAT kind of idiot first, then draw them deeper and deeper into their deceit.

I think about this EVERY time someone praises A.I.

@stavvers hide

I'm so niche that I have organised the covers and samples of Push The Feeling On using Winston Rowntree's Eight Possible Cover Songs categories

THE WHY BOTHER (Pointlessly different)
Waze & Odyssey - Bump & Grind

THE PALETTE SWAP (Pointlessly similar)
Nightwalkers (yes really) - Push The Feeling On

TROLL ADDED ("Hilarious" novelty cover)
French Montana - Wiggle It

THE MADONNA (Original pissed all over by shitty artist)
Pitbull - Hotel Room Service

THE EQUALER (Different, with no loss in quality)
Teknova - Push The Feeling On 2019

THE SUCCESSFUL GENRE SWAP (for fans of that genre)
AJ Tracey - Dinner Guest

SOUL ADDED (Song rescued by superior artist)
Riton - Friday (Dopamine Re-Edit)

THE WHOLE NEW LEVEL (Makes the original look like the cover)
Glamrock Brothers - Push The Feeling On 2k12

1. Qeshm. When the Trump administration started talking about Kharg, I initially mistakenly thought this was what they wanted.

Holding it would definitely help to defend the strait, it could be approached more easily by the US navy ('easy' is very relative here, but it is at least plausible they could fight their way in). And it has not been mentioned at all in briefings. Is this all strategic misdirection by the US?

Qeshm would still be difficult to retain, it's a LOT bigger than Kharg and it's even closer to the Iran coast, meaning the rate of attrition from rockets and drones would be higher. The temptation to stay would be extremely high, dragging the US into yet another occupation trap.

However, the main reason I discount Qeshm is I simply dont think Trump would keep it under his hat for this long! He blurts out all sorts of secrets when he thinks it's fine to do so.

2a. The most difficult part comes next. The uranium would need to be located, secured for transit and safely removed. They will need to test it in situ to make sure it hasn't been substituted with something else. That's not easy to do under fire and against a time limit Iran could swap the UF6 in the cylinders with something hazardous and a way to make them leak when on board the planes. Or they could pack them with MAGA hats, who knows. By this time the defences will be fully aware and the withdrawal will be under heavy attack all the way home. There will of course be casualties but there is a greater risk - capture of troops. Leaving POWs behind would prompt further escalation

2) Isfahan. It would be a raid only, with the stated intention of removing Uranium then withdrawing. Deep in the centre of the country, the troops would be surrounded from the start. It would need to be the largest airborne raid in history. It is within range of V-22s meaning that a vertical landing could be employed. But only just - they would need to be launched from Iraq near the border, or air-refuelled in Iran's airspace. Both options are easily detectable and again, any kind of working air defence will scupper them. It is true that the USAF is very competent at air-defense suppression. Yet there have been aircraft losses to enemy fire already. Or transport planes could be employed. There would need to be an operation to create an expedient landing strip for the C-130s. This failed last time - have they learned how to make this work?

1. Kharg. It's very far away from Hormuz and holding it would do precisely nothing to open the strait. It would be air-supported only - the US navy would suffer heavy losses if it were to attempt sailing all the way up the Gulf. Unless landing craft could be brought to a friendly nation on the south side and launch from there.

As a rocky island near the Iran coast, geography favours the defender here - but without intelligence on the actual forces involved it's difficult to say. If Iran could mount any kind of anti-air defence it would be very risky for the troop transports.

It's easily within range of drone and rocket attack from the nearby mainland, so the losses will mount the longer USA stays put there.

Taking it would be a bargaining chip for Trump - but the Iranian leadership simply don't look like they're that bothered about a deal.

Now with bonus corruption of course large amounts of oil and facilities would be seized and it would pass directly into ownership by Trump

According to the media, there are two options for USA to send ground troops into Iran 1) Kharg Island 2) Isfahan. I think there is an option 3) Qeshm island. All are massive mistakes, but for different reasons

In our family, it used to be that ANY pair of three-syllable words would be substituted for the name of the actor Birmingham Cumberland. But now those same misused words could also mean the other actor Tiverton Chandelier. It's so confusing

@burnoutqueen@todon.nl I wish we had a generic name for the equation so we didn't have to keep referring to that man

@arratoon@beige.party @TheBreadmonkey@beige.party hard agree and f Ticketmaster specifically, but the worse thing about them is they are the only way to get those tickets, so in your analogy you'd also close every other coffee shop in the world

Labour tries to act tough on immigration, but are enough Reform UK voters ever going to switch their vote for a "Shabana Mahmood"? No. No, they are not, and we all know why.

There's no point trying to appease racists. Labour should be forgetting those votes, and instead governing such that regular people see the benefit of a liberal and tolerant Britain