SirPalomides

Saudi and UAE are very easy targets, and yes, it would be disastrous for everyone. Remember how much havoc there was last year when a few drones attacked the Saudi oil fields. That was a very small foretaste of the pain Iran could inflict if forced to.

Journalist Elijah Magnier- whom I find consistently well-informed and reliable on these matters- is saying the missile attacks were intended as symbolic. If they wanted to inflict serious casualties they could still do so quite easily. Iran’s foreign minister called it an act of self-defense and insisted that it was not intended as escalation. Trump is playing it down so far, which suggests he got the message.

No. Politically Iran has no choice but to retaliate and the US knew this when they murdered Gen. Soleimani. If, as some are saying, there were no US casualties that might be for the best... and maybe even by design. Supposedly when Iran shot down that ridiculously expensive drone last year, Trump secretly begged Iran to let him bomb an empty beach just to tell people at home he retaliated. Iran said no at that time. Maybe something similar happened here and the US was forewarned about the bases.

Uh, not those memes. Seriously, people still listen to Alex fucking Jones?

For some reason the 1979 Revolution (and the hostage crisis) was almost like a national martyrdom for Americans at that time... that's how humiliating it was, and the American establishment can't forgive Iran for it. There was actually a very brief period after 9/11 where the Iranian government was happily collaborating with the US re: Afghanistan, providing all kinds of good intelligence, because they hated the Taliban. Then Bush Jr gave his "Axis of Evil" speech.

I love Robert W Chambers' King in Yellow stories. The other stuff I've seen by him inclines me to agree with the assessment that he did not nurture his talent nearly as much as he could have.

I guess it depends on what is meant by "prevail". The US, in one sense, prevailed in Afghanistan 18 years ago, but now it is clear that the Taliban are the real victors. Likewise the Iraq invasion destroyed Saddam's government but was an enormous gift to Iran, allowing them unprecedented influence in the region. I have a hard time seeing the US prevailing even in the short-term sense- occupying Iran, whether you look at geography, politics, or military technology- would be an utter nightmare for US forces. It would be a nightmare for Iranians too, but they aren't going anywhere. The simple truth of a successful insurgency isn't winning battles but hanging on for long enough for the invader to get sick of losing men and money. Unlike Saddam's Iraq, Iran is a cohesive nation. Even Iranians who- for good reason- despise the current government, will rally to their country against the US, just as they did in the 80's against Saddam. So I don't think the US could even make it as far as successfully invading the country. And if they do, they're definitely not going to hold on to it. And the other thing is that, if the US wanted to kill Soleimani, they should have done it back in '03. Since then he worked tirelessly to build alliances and coalitions throughout the region- Hezbollah, Houthis, the Syrian government and allies, Iraqi militia movements. Iran now has numerous tough and loyal friends who are itching to hit at the empire that has fomented so much misery and chaos in their region. They don't even have to hit at US troops directly- Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel are eminently targetable. The Gulf States in particular are really vulnerable- someone fittingly compared them to moon colonies, because, at their present level of population, they are utterly dependent on expensive and very fragile technologies to make life livable in their harsh climates. A few well-placed strikes on the water desalination plants and oil refineries would ruin those countries virtually overnight. And while the average American may not care much about what happens to the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, they would not be so indifferent to the exponential spikes in gas prices.

Iran has enough friends- good friends- in Iraq and the Levant to make any war a nightmare for the US and regional allies. Likewise their drone and missile capabilities spell pretty much instant death for Gulf States- remember how much havoc the Houthis caused Saudi last year with just a handful of drones. And any navy foolish enough to enter the Persian Gulf is toast. Not that Iran wouldn't suffer- the suffering would be horrific- but Iran will endure it. The US can't endure a fraction of it. Even Trump, somewhere in his jello brain, must know this. That's why I think it's still unlikely a full-scale war would happen. But of course I may well be underestimating the stupidity of a profoundly stupid man.

A lot of this stuff is quite arcane to me because I come to Daoism more out of interest in the religious aspects than the martial arts (though I do recognize everything is connected, and the martial arts stuff seems pretty awesome).

Is there any basic explanation of what mo pai is? Do I even want to know?

If the question is regarding Iran's response to the assassination of General Soleimani, my impression is that the Iranian leadership is very cautious and calculating. My guess is that their retaliation will be more cunning than spectacular. They are prepared, if necessary, to endure a full scale war but they certainly don't want it. The Americans' tendency to hit nails with sledgehammers, of course, can't be ruled out but even in the US leadership there are people who realize that a full-blown war with Iran would be an utter disaster.

It was me.

Yeah if you thought the full quote would vindicate you, you were sorely mistaken. But keep trying. Rosa Parks would.

Well if “the [uncited] lore” says it...

Judging by how messed up things have gotten, I’ve got a hunch it’s the flamingo-headed people who are running things.

I do love the Siberian Grandfather Frosts. Their hats alone are wonderful.

I don’t know how much that can be blamed on Chinese terminology- obviously Indian Buddhist metaphysicians felt the need to correct the misunderstanding in their own ranks. And while Buddhism does refute the idea of an abiding self there is also the clear understanding that individual mind streams are not divided or combined over countless ages. That is to say, one death leads to one rebirth- eg one human gets reborn as one animal, which gets reborn as one hungry ghost, which gets reborn as one x. So while the content of this mind stream alters moment by moment, the chain of thoughts/ rebirths remains discrete. As I recall the alaya consciousness is sometimes distinguished as collective alaya versus individual alaya.

I'm surprised there isn't more interest in those Gaotang Dream ceramic pillows!

Don't stop there. With your single-handed overthrow of millenia of Annunaki-imposed soft-but-deadly somnial oppression, you are Rosa Parks, Che Guevara, Neo, Spartacus, and Muad'dib rolled into one. You are the chosen one. I am astounded that you can utter such brave things without constant fear of being dragged away by the space lizard cheka and sent to a gulag orbiting Betelgeuse.

And finding out that reality is an L Ron Hubbard novel as reinterpreted by an 8-year old.

Pillows were invented to keep bugs out of our ears... is that like how the pyramids of Giza were built by Joseph to store grain?

In at least some streams of classical theism it is not proper to speak of God as “existing” or “being”. A “controlling supreme being” would just be one creature among the others, even if at the top of the chain, and not God. Check out On the Divine Names by Dionysius the Areopagite and the Ambigua by Maximus the Confessor.

It's a pterodactyl who listens to synthwave and whose bedroom is lined with 80's collectibles ( Rainbrow Brite lunchboxes, Karate Kid posters, etc.)

There are strains of Christianity where God is both transcendent and imminent, and there are strains where God wills that all will eventually be saved, and hell is really just a purgatory. Sometimes these strains converge in a form that is orthodox, e.g. in the work of Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Generally the Eastern church fathers, and not Augustine and his followers, are the best people to turn to for Christian theology. For a modern theologian of this type, see David Bentley Hart (who also happens to be conversant and sympathetic with Buddhist and other non-Christian metaphysical systems).