Is it true?Source?
Is it a declaration of war?
Which one? the head of the Revolutionary Guard Qasem Soleimani?Yes
Is it a declaration of war?Assassinated by who?
Now Kol haolam says the AP confirmed itOne America news is reporting it now also.... TRUMP!!
Assassinated by who?US airstrike
TRUMP starting the new decade with a BANG!and the dems are looking for problems must be its a huge win for trump
'כן יאבדו כל אויביך ה
Why is this in JSBecause JS is the lowest it goes.
No reaction in the markets.oil changed
oil changedGold was the first indicator.
Invalid Tweet IDWhat in the world? Sick.
Invalid Tweet IDCan't click. What's the headline?
What in the world? Sick.What is sick?
What is sick?I think they are referring to the wapo headline calling him a revered leader
Iraqis — Iraqis — dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more. pic.twitter.com/huFcae3ap4
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020
I think they are referring to the wapo headline calling him a revered leaderThat's what he was. He was also a murderer that got what he deserved.
That's what he was. He was also a murderer that got what he deserved.I don't know if he was revered by Iranians or not, but if he was, I don't get what the big deal is
I don't know if he was revered by Iranians or not, but if he was, I don't get what the big deal isI didn't know either so that is why I asked. Him being revered makes this strike's message even stronger.
I didn't know either so that is why I asked. Him being revered makes this strike's message even stronger.Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?
Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?Your brain is mush.
Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?Oh please. Wapo is ultra liberal, but this is pretty innocuous. Some people have sour milk on their glasses
Tomorrow they'll have an interview with his poor widow.
Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?This is FOX's headline. Why did they call him a Top General and not a scumbag killer?
Tomorrow they'll have an interview with his poor widow.
Why did they call him a Top General and not a scumbag killer?"Top General" is an objectively true description.
"Top General" is an objectively true description.They are both accurate so I fail to see why someone would harp on the one word unless they wanted to spin it. What did the article say?
"Most Revered Leader" is meant to draw a narrative. (As is " 'escalation' ")
Now deblasio’s complaining about it in Twitter.
Now deblasio’s complaining about it in TwitterI hope he heads over there to show solidarity with them.
🙄
I hope he heads over there to show solidarity with them.What did he say?
What did he say?
Worried for our city + our nation. Without the approval of Congress, the US Government effectively declared war on Iran tonight. The American people had no say in the matter, despite voting time + again to stop endless wars + bring our troops home. This one will not end soon.
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) January 3, 2020
Have spoken with Commissioner Shea + Dep Commissioner Miller about immediate steps NYPD will take to protect key NYC locations from any attempt by Iran or its terrorist allies to retaliate against America. We will have to be vigilant against this threat for a long time to come.
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) January 3, 2020
Headline excellence https://t.co/q2ngzUezHh
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
Why they call him #1. They trying to say he is the best? @ToastedHeadline excellence https://t.co/q2ngzUezHh
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
actually suprising
Because JS is the lowest it goes.ya I see it belongs here.
They are both accurateNot necessarily.
I fail to see why someone would harp on the one word unless they wanted to spin it.Saying he's the top general is giving straight factual information about who he was.
What did the article say?I wouldn't know, I didn't read the article, I only saw the headline. Just like so many other people -- which is why the wording of headlines is so important.
Saying he was the most revered leader is creating the story that killing him will anger the Iranian peopleWe will find out then in the coming days if this is accurate or not.
re·vereWould that describe OBL?
/rəˈvir/
verb
past tense: revered; past participle: revered
feel deep respect or admiration for (something).
Would that describe OBL?
Now deblasio’s complaining about it in TwitterGood, in case we had any doubt it was the right move we can now be sure.
🙄
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/u-s-gives-israel-green-light-to-assassinate-iran-s-general-soleimani-1.5630156 (https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/u-s-gives-israel-green-light-to-assassinate-iran-s-general-soleimani-1.5630156)OK, I'm a idiot. Somehow I missed the year when I looked at the date of this story. Now I understand why nobody seems to think it's a big deal (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji15.png)
They are both accurateSource that he was revered? (other than Wapo and the like)
Source that he was revered? (other than Wapo and the like)https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-mourning-vows-revenge-qassem-soleimani-killing-200103100607193.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-mourning-vows-revenge-qassem-soleimani-killing-200103100607193.htmlI don't see anything there saying he was revered.
Source that he was revered? (other than Wapo and the like)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-mourning-vows-revenge-qassem-soleimani-killing-200103100607193.html
We will find out then in the coming days if this is accurate or not.Pretty sad when individuals will try and discredit anything from anywhere if it doesn't fit their agenda. Focusing on one silly word in a headline. ::)
Headline excellence https://t.co/q2ngzUezHh
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
actually suprising
Clarification: This headline has been updated to reflect that this is an opinion column.
— CNBC (@CNBC) January 3, 2020
It's a military strike, leave the politics out of it. He was a very significant player, strategist of the other side. Not knowing who the enemy is is not good path to follow...and we should focus on what comes next.
They were surprised themselves. They've since corrected the error.You feel they should have kept an opinion piece labeled as news?
You feel they should have kept an opinion piece labeled as news?
I'd estimate that 90% of this piece could be included in a fairly objective news piece with style adjustments.
Dronan? pic.twitter.com/Bv7kO7wN3b
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
“Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.”Sad!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/rose-mcgowan-defends-tweet-apologizing-to-iran-after-strike/ar-BBYBZEt?ocid=spartandhp
Sad!Just a leftwing nut case. I thought it is kind of funny. Like she speaks for 52% on the nation.
People would probably say the same if Trump was the one that ordered a hit on Bin Laden.
Just a leftwing nut case. I thought it is kind of funny. Like she speaks for 52% on the nation.She should go to Iran to personally deliver the apology
She should go to Iran to personally deliver the apologyI volunteer Trump. :P
“Iran has been nothing but a problem for many years,” Trump tweeted. “Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”Finally starting to appreciate Trump? ;)
Finally starting to appreciate Trump? ;)Times like this you don't play politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The killing was basically an act of war.
Times like this you don't play politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The killing was basically an act of war.next time wait until Benghazi?
quite sickening the tweets from pelosi and many other demcorats. and since when does deblasio understand international affairs? they are totally never trump and nothing he does will every be good for them #Trump2020So they don't follow..
next time wait until Benghazi?
Times like this you don't play politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The killing was basically an act of war.
next time wait until Benghazi?If their is a war are you going to volunteer or for that matter anyone shooting their mouth off going to volunteer?
If their is a war are you going to volunteer or for that matter anyone shooting their mouth off going to volunteer?Since when are you an appeaser? This guy is responsible for deaths of many and should be put out to the pasture. We shouldn't let things slide just to delay an inevitable conflict.
Since when are you an appeaser? This guy is responsible for deaths of many and should be put out to the pasture. We shouldn't let things slide just to delay an inevitable conflict.Appeaser? >:(
Since when are you an appeaser? This guy is responsible for deaths of many and should be put out to the pasture. We shouldn't let things slide just to delay an inevitable conflict.Just think about what you would be saying if a different President did this.
Three guesses who said this and the first two don't count. :)2 and 3
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.
...and how about this one?
Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.
2 and 3...and the third guess that counts is? :)
Flying over Syria and Iraq on a commercial flight is a bit scary a few days after this
...and the third guess that counts is? :)We all know that DJT has a tweet for all occasions, but I wasn't counting guesses.
We all know that DJT has a tweet for all occasions, but I wasn't counting guesses.The problem is his tweets are an insight to the way he thinks. Hopefully this isn't the case or another Gulf of Tonkin.
The problem is his tweets are an insight to the way he thinks. Hopefully this isn't the case or another Gulf of Tonkin.You know what I have to say about the sincerity of politicians.
I can see all the grasshoppers giving Google a work out. ;)
Just think about what you would be saying if a different President did this.The same exact thing. I am actually of the opinion that even Obama were he in the same position of Iran constantly pushing the most they can and escalating, would have done the same thing.
The same exact thing. I am actually of the opinion that even Obama were he in the same position of Iran constantly pushing the most they can and escalating, would have done the same thing.Past presidents (D and R) had the option but never went that route. They would not even give Israel the green light to take him out.
Past presidents (D and R) had the option but never went that route. They would not even give Israel the green light to take him out.That was Obama in his single-minded quest to make a deal with Iran at all costs that left the Iranians laughing all the way to the bank. Nevermind the personal enmity with Netanyahu.
That was Obama in his single-minded quest to make a deal with Iran at all costs that left the Iranians laughing all the way to the bank. Nevermind the personal enmity with Netanyahu.How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?
How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?What do you think Iran is looking for besides war with the West? Don't fool yourself. They only understand power. The problem with Trump is that he's mostly a paper tiger. He's a coward. Once in a while, he'll do something right.
What do you think Iran is looking for besides war with the West? Don't fool yourself. They only understand power. The problem with Trump is that he's mostly a paper tiger. He's a coward. Once in a while, he'll do something right.I didn't see an answer to my question.
I didn't see an answer to my question.I do.
I do.Where?
Where?Iran is seeking war. Period. Why wait until they are able to strengthen themselves? Why give them money and license to arm themselves? Why give them free reign to terrorize the world with impunity? Why should America's president be the next Chamberlain (or worse)?
Anybody know if neturei karta are sitting shiva here or in Iran ?Invalid Tweet ID
Invalid Tweet IDObviously a spoof account. Some funny stuff on there.
This was a power play by Trump and he eliminated someone with American blood on his hands.
Hopefully this prevents further attacks from Iran and avoids a war by making them realize that America won't be bullied.
I am itching for a war, so America can crush Iran.Like we crushed Iraq and Afghanistan?
Like we crushed Iraq and Afghanistan?Just need a COWARD president who will pull out after 3 weeks.
I am itching for a war, so America can crush Iran.You going to go fight?
Iran is seeking war. Period. Why wait until they are able to strengthen themselves? Why give them money and license to arm themselves? Why give them free reign to terrorize the world with impunity? Why should America's president be the next Chamberlain (or worse)?All you keep doing is asking questions. Try answering the question or I will assume there is no benefit for the US.
Best case we could hope for is regime change. We bungled a few chances under Obama, as Obama and the European bureaucrats like the Mullahs better than the Iranian people, apparently.
How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?
This was a power play by Trump and he eliminated someone with American blood on his hands.A power play by basically declaring war on Iran?
Hopefully this prevents further attacks from Iran and avoids a war by making them realize that America won't be bullied.
How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?So you're coming with a premise that Iran/Sulameini weren't killing Americans until now and now there's going to be a full-blown war and things will get much worse.
So you're coming with a premise that Iran/Sulameini weren't killing Americans until now and now there's going to be a full-blown war and things will get much worse.Of course they have been plotting and killing Americans and others. No one is arguing should a person like that be killed. The question is will doing so start a war. You think the plotting and killing will stop?
The counter to that is that they were already killing Americans (mostly through their proxies) and doing this helps make the world a safer place in the long run -- even if there a short-term uptick in casualties.If there is a war it is not going to be just an uptick in casualties.
Of course they have been plotting and killing Americans and others. No one is arguing should a person like that be killed. The question is will doing so start a war. You think the plotting and killing will stop?If there is a war it is going to be just an uptick in casualties.Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.I don't bet when it comes to American lives and I will assume you didn't mean it that way.
Shall we put $20 on it?
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war.What happens if they take out an oil tanker? What if they attack Israel?
@Are you really not capable of understanding Middle Eastern culture and learning from history?Learning from history? Is this KAC using alternate history?
What happens if they take out an oil tanker? What if they attack Israel?They did both already. The US should respond forcefully and teach them a lesson. This is the language they speak. Not whining fearfully about war.
The US will have to respond and it will split this country like never before.
What happens if they take out an oil tanker? What if they attack Israel?
The US will have to respond and it will split this country like never before.
I don't bet when it comes to American lives and I will assume you didn't mean it that way.We're not betting on American lives. You seem convinced this will lead to a declaration of war. I think the opposite is true.
If there is a war it is not going to be just an uptick in casualties.
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war.Exactly. They talk a big talk but at the end of the day their #1 goal is to stay in power. The last thing they want is all out war with the US. Because whatever the ultimate result of that would be, one thing that's absolutely certain is that the current regime will be knocked out.
We're not betting on American lives. You seem convinced this will lead to a declaration of war. I think the opposite is true.War will cause American deaths.
War will cause American deaths.You're putting on a very convincing case that you're burying your head in the sand.
I am convinced like past R/D Presidents it is not worth the risk.
I think we'll probably see more proxy attacks, probably primarily on Saudi Arabia & Israel.And then what? We do nothing or escalate our attacks?
And then what? We do nothing or escalate our attacks?Depends on how damaging their proxy attacks are.
Exactly. They talk a big talk but at the end of the day their #1 goal is to stay in power. The last thing they want is all out war with the US. Because whatever the ultimate result of that would be, one thing that's absolutely certain is that the current regime will be knocked out.+1. More proxy attacks. Fewer attacks on American targets and embassies.
I think we'll probably see more proxy attacks, probably primarily on Saudi Arabia & Israel.
You're putting on a very convincing case that you're burying your head in the sand.Iran is no threat to the US.
And then what? We do nothing or escalate our attacks?1. I meant to say in the short-term.
Depends on how damaging their proxy attacks are.
Iran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.Because we know more about Iran and understand their thinking more than some random person on the street since we are very much involved in the region.
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.Because even those who don't support or like Trump (hopefully) dislike Iran a lot more.
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.Because the current Iran regime is an existential threat to Israel, and there is no way they emerge stronger from this.
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.How did I know this would end up here?
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
Because the current Iran regime is an existential threat to Israel, and there is no way they emerge stronger from this.Appreciate the honest answer.
How did I know this would end up here?Because it is hard for many here to look at this objectively.
Because the current Iran regime is an existential threat to Israel, and there is no way they emerge stronger from this.Wait, are you saying that we shouldn't have just shipped them more pallets of cash instead? (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji14.png)
Like we crushed Iraq and Afghanistan?
Only need to crush the regime. I don't care if utter chaos follows there. In and out in a matter of weeks.Not going to happen. Iran would have to do something really dumb to get to that point. And despite what some in this thread think, they won't. Because they're not dumb.
The only reason Iran can do as much damage as it's doing, is that there is a solid regime behind it all.
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!Good. Make sure Iran knows that the USA won't be bullied and they won't kill more Americans.
Make sure Iran knows that the USA won't be bullied and they won't kill more Americans.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/three-americans-killed-in-kenya-terror-attack/ar-BBYDyAV?ocid=spartanntp
Worst fear has always been this idiot was going to get Americans killed needlessly. He just keeps adding to that fear. He really believes he is the "Chosen One".Gotta love him!!
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-ends-nuclear-limits-as-killing-of-iranian-general-upends-mideast/ar-BBYDdpd?ocid=spartandhpSo you really think they stuck to any limits until now?
Worst fear has always been this idiot was going to get Americans killed needlessly. He just keeps adding to that fear. He really believes he is the "Chosen One".Im begining to think that its an impeachable offense
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
Im begining to think that its an impeachable offenseEspecially if there was collusion involved.
Especially if there was collusion involved.there was for sure collussion between trump and pompeo we dont even need an investigation for this
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!He prepared the notification articles for congress, he is just not sending them over until he is sure he will be treated fairly
So far no Iranian response wonder if their just going to threatenThey issued 3 days of prayer and then revenge
Worst fear has always been this idiot was going to get Americans killed needlessly. He just keeps adding to that fear. He really believes he is the "Chosen One"."Only thing we should fear is fear itself" - FDR
Iran saw and exploited the fear that you and the likes have of going into war, now they'll rethink twice, ultimately lowering the actual likelihood for a war.The fear is not war, the fear is a needless war for his ego.
The fear is not war, the fear is a needless war for his ego.Thanks God Iran has a far greater fear of this.
Past presidents (D and R) had the option but never went that route. They would not even give Israel the green light to take him out.
Can we at least agree that Sanders and other left-wing politicians calling it an "assassination" is just wrong and anti-american?
Trump is an idiot for threatening cultural sites. Besides the ethical issues and how it blurs the separation between us and ISIS, it is a great way to mobilize the Iranian public behind the current regime in any conflict.He says these things just to make the Dems crazy
He says these things just to make the Dems crazyDoesn't change anything
Doubt he’d actually do it
He says these things just to make the Dems crazyThe threat itself is problematic.
Doubt he’d actually do it
Trump is an idiot for threatening cultural sites. Besides the ethical issues and how it blurs the separation between us and ISIS, it is a great way to mobilize the Iranian public behind the current regime in any conflict.Yup
If only Trump would be on DDF he would be doing everything perfectlySince when does he listen to advice?
He says these things just to make the Dems crazyKeep enabling him.
Doubt he’d actually do it
I think he said cultural targets, not necessarily sitesAre they revered and austere scholars?
ayatollahs would be cultural targets, no?
This is really a great article. From Joe Lieberman.Fantastic. Joe for President!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-and-iran-11578262553?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Fantastic. Joe for President!You might get your wish. 😁
?s=19This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator. https://t.co/VTroMegWv0
— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 5, 2020
?s=19This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator. https://t.co/VTroMegWv0
— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 5, 2020
Keep enabling him.The same ones who told us that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would make the region more volatile? I am tired of the apologists for our enemies who are always afraid of hurting our enemies more than protecting us.
This is who he is, a complete ego maniac idiot. He thinks he knows more than all our great military minds.
This is really a great article. From Joe Lieberman.Can someone help with the paywall?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-and-iran-11578262553?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
The same ones who told us that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would make the region more volatile? I am tired of the apologists for our enemies who are always afraid of hurting our enemies more than protecting us.You’re so right!
Can someone help with the paywall?+1
The same ones who told us that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would make the region more volatile? I am tired of the apologists for our enemies who are always afraid of hurting our enemies more than protecting us.How did moving the embassy benefit the US? It sure didn't help the peace process. Who is "us" you are talking about?
Thread title updated.How about this for a title? Israel turns its back on the US?
<Ducks and runs>
How about this for a title? Israel turns its back on the US?
But the response of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump’s staunchest supporters on the world stage. He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: “The assassination of Suleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.”
What does that have to do with anything?Everyone seems to be calling it an "assassination" even our so-called allies.
I think that we can all agree that this was the taking out of a terrorist, not an assassination of a "military leader".
How about this for a title? Israel turns its back on the US?Bibi also said that trump deserves full credit
But the response of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump’s staunchest supporters on the world stage. He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: “The assassination of Suleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.”
ETA: I fully expect Israel to change its tune.
Bibi also said that trump deserves full creditOf course he said that. He wants nothing to do with this.
Of course he said that. He wants nothing to do with this.Do you think what Bibi says to the public is what he says it trump? Great odds that they agreed before or right the assasination that Israel MUST distance themselves as FAR as possible from this.
Do you think what Bibi says to the public is what he says it trump? Great odds that they agreed before or right the assasination that Israel MUST distance themselves as FAR as possible from this.You missed your calling as a fiction writer. :)
(Why do you think the Pentagon took credit so fast? Because Israel really assassinated him, but that would mean certain war, so Trump takes credit to avert a war.)
You missed your calling as a fiction writer. :)While I'm somewhat impartial, I must say that there's more than just speculation pointing to what he's saying.
While I'm somewhat impartial, I must say that there's more than just speculation pointing to what he's saying.Fair enough, link please?
Do you think what Bibi says to the public is what he says it trump? Great odds that they agreed before or right the assasination that Israel MUST distance themselves as FAR as possible from this.First part sounds legit, second part makes no sense. (Mainly because it was in an area the US was already operating and Israel would need to fly through hostile territory to do it, what possible reason could there be for Israel to do it if the US is taking credit?)
(Why do you think the Pentagon took credit so fast? Because Israel really assassinated him, but that would mean certain war, so Trump takes credit to avert a war.)
First part sounds legit, second part makes no sense.Bibi has to stroke Trumps ego especially in public. Saying Trump "assassinated" someone is not the word he should have used.
Bibi has to stroke Trumps ego especially in public. Saying Trump "assassinated" someone is not the word he should have used.1. I'm not sure what the big deal with the word "assassinated" is. I think context / how it's being used is more important.
Can someone help with the paywall?The Wall Street Journal
Why can’t the party’s candidates simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes Americans safer?Maybe because they don't believe it?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/khamenei-wants-to-put-irans-stamp-on-reprisal-for-us-killing-of-top-general/ar-BBYGcIB?ocid=spartanntp
"In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday."
Maybe because they don't believe it?They can agree that him gone is a good thing, without agreeing on the method or timing.
Is targeting cultural sites an international war crime?I think we both believe that he's saying that try and scare Iran.
Seems someone understands the law: "We will follow the laws of armed conflict," Esper told CNN Monday. When pressed if that meant not targeting Iranian cultural sites, Esper replied, "That's the laws of armed conflict."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/khamenei-wants-to-put-irans-stamp-on-reprisal-for-us-killing-of-top-general/ar-BBYGcIB?ocid=spartanntpThis would be suicidal for them... Unless it's a Cyber attack, that causes chaos but not major damage ( or any casualties)
"In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday."
I do not understand your basis for not supporting killing this guy.This is your problem. You can't understand anything but the way you see it. Any reasonable person might not agree but at least they understand. You and most here can not look at this objectively.
They can agree that him gone is a good thing, without agreeing on the method or timing.The question was if it makes American safer.
I think we both believe that he's saying that try and scare Iran.No this idiot was no respect for the rule of law.
This is your problem. You can't understand anything but the way you see it. Any reasonable person might not agree but at least they understand. You and most here can not look at this objectively.
So tell me objectively (not that you can be) why it was worse to kill this terrorist then OBL?Nobody is claiming it is morally worse. The issue is the repercussions may be more severe. You are totally ignoring that by shifting the argument to which is more justifiable.
Nobody is claiming it is morally worse. The issue is the repercussions may be more severe. You are totally ignoring that by shifting the argument to which is more justifiable.
So tell me objectively (not that you can be) why it was worse to kill this terrorist then OBL?Many terrorist have been taken out by this and past presidents. This was a terrorist tied to a country and OBL was not. You need to way the consequences and the benefits of every action.
What repercussions can Iran do to the USA? They cant hit the USA with missiles. Leaving aside Israel..Seriously?
Seriously?
They can hijack planes and fly them into US soil skyscrapers They wouldn't dare
They can attack the countless US personnel and assets in the region That is the risk with any combatant in that part of the world
They can attack key US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, hurting US interests The US consulted with Bibi first and they gave the ok
They can launch deadly cyber attacks against US soil You are a fool if you think they have not tried to in the past
Granted, I support this murder, but I am not blinded enough to not consider the counterargument
Listen at the end of the day time will tell if they hit back, but I am of the opinion that even if they hit back (which I do not believe will be in any way a big attack) it was worth it.You could be right and no one is disagreeing with that. What I am asking is do you understand why some disagree with you?
You could be right and no one is disagreeing with that. What I am asking is do you understand why some disagree with you?
The part I do not understand is why we should be afraid of a possibility of repercussions for taking someone out that HAS killed and HAD plans to kill more. In talmud we have a saying ספק ובריא בריא עדיף. Which means when you have a possibility vs a guarantee the guarantee is better.This isn't about being afraid. It is about what is best for the US. A legit question is does this make the US safer? To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
This isn't about being afraid. It is about what is best for the US. A legit question is does this make the US safer? To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
We are still left with the question, why now? So far the WH has not answered that.
This isn't about being afraid. It is about what is best for the US. A legit question is does this make the US safer? To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
We are still left with the question, why now? So far the WH has not answered that.
If he was planning and plotting additional attacks, then it makes the US saferI believe he (Iran) has been and is now plotting attacks. The question is did killing him reduce that or accelerate it? Do you really believe these attacks will stop?
It’s 4 days later and I still don’t see any war.Are you really that naďve?
I guess some are so short sighted they forget how long 911 took to plan. Lets all pound our chest and claim no attack has happened so far so we are right. For those individuals please see my signature.
Or better yet use that same logic about the Messiah. >:(
You have yet to answer me regarding Hitler.If you need to bring him into this discussion you have no argument.
This is your problem. You can't understand anything but the way you see it. Any reasonable person might not agree but at least they understand. You and most here can not look at this objectively.How is this congruent with this?
To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
How is this congruent with this?What's the issue? Israel is one of our allies and this directly affects them.
What's the issue? Israel is one of our allies and this directly affects them.If it affects them negatively then why would support of Israel cause someone to be unobjective to support this?
If it affects them negatively then why would support of Israel cause someone to be unobjective to support this?Wait for Friday. :P
Wait for Friday. :PIf it needs to wait for Friday then it most likely shows that it is wrong and simply an unobjective conclusion.
If it needs to wait for Friday then it most likely shows that it is wrong and simply an unobjective conclusion.What it shows is you not being honest in this discussion. It is extremely hard for individuals to be objective when it hits so close to home. I fully understand that, how about you?
What it shows is you not being honest in this discussion. It is extremely hard for individuals to be objective when it hits so close to home. I fully understand that, how about you?You know that I regularly say that nobody is objective.
You know that I regularly say that nobody is objective.That is your problem not mine. Try getting out more. :)
That is your problem not mine. Try getting out more. :)
Do you understand why most of the world and probably at least half of the US thinks this was the wrong thing to do?
That must be why anyone can predict just about every opinion of yours.You mean how I could predict 99% of the members response here? Or how I could predict 99% of the members response to pardoning someone? Probably all lucky guesses on my part. You want 5, 10 or more examples?
Of course some of it is because they hate Trump. Do you admit that some only support this because they support Trump?
While I am sure there are some, and perhaps even many that genuinely think so, (which is fair), you must admit that a great percentage of those against, are against just because it was DJT. I won't even get into the rest of the world.
Of course some of it is because they hate Trump. Do you admit that some only support this because they support Trump?I most definitely do. I would place that as the root cause of the support of many here.
I most definitely do. I would place that as the root cause of the support of many here.So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)
In addition, not to justify, but a big part of the reason many close their eyes and ears to potential arguments, is specifically because of the knee jerk reaction of the other side. (I imagine this happens both ways). However, there are many who see both sides, but support DJT's actions in this situation, and it doesn't mean they are biased because of Israel. In addition, many may not have given the green light if it was up to them, but now that it is done, are at least happy that he is gone, albeit somewhat apprehensive about possible repercussions.
While I am sure there are some, and perhaps even many that genuinely think so, (which is fair), you must admit that a great percentage of those against, are against just because it was DJT. I won't even get into the rest of the world.
Of course some of it is because they hate Trump. Do you admit that some only support this because they support Trump?Of course
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)correct. They would suddenly be worried about repercussions.
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)That is an additional step
You mean how I could predict 99% of the members response here? Or how I could predict 99% of the members response to pardoning someone? Probably all lucky guesses on my part. You want 5, 10 or more examples?
Of courseYou have the nutcases on both sides that you need to exclude. That leaves a few R's/D's and mostly I's that can be objective. I will bet they are pretty much split. So when you see most here support this decision wouldn't it fair to say they are not being objective?
Are you referring to how they have been right 99% of the time? Trump won the election, economy is doing great, and all the bad things never happened. And we ain’t tired of winning just yet.If you want to put your money where your mouth is instead of just shooting it off just let me know. Like every other time we get into this you will fold like a cheap suit.
Here’s a formula I concocted to save you time, you can repost as necessary:
MSM anti-trump reaction (1-10 scale) - 1 level = CV unbiased opinion.
You have the nutcases on both sides that you need to exclude. That leaves a few R's/D's and mostly I's that can be objective. I will bet they are pretty much split. So when you see most here support this decision wouldn't it fair to say they are not being objective?I agree that most posts I have seen on this topic have not been objective. As I said probably partially because of the other sides knee jerk reaction, people begun to close their eyes and ears to the other side. Likely so is because of support for DJT as aygart said, but even if so, I believe that in different times, people who are (in all likelihood), usually intellectually honest, would be so here as well.
That must be why anyone can predict just about every opinion of yours.You are so naďve you don't even know if I am a D/R/I.
correct. They would suddenly be worried about repercussions.We disagree and that is fine.
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)
Soleimani has been at the top of the global most wanted terrorist list for a quarter of a century. I don't care which President took him out, the world is better off without him. I was not a big fan of President Obama's, but he did manage to have Bin Laden killed - props to him for that.+1.
Regardless of which American president took them out, there are always repercussions. There is always a chance that it sparks a new wave of retaliation or escalation.
Regardless of which American president took them out, there are always repercussions. There is always a chance that it sparks a new wave of retaliation or escalation.No one is disagreeing that he was a terrorist and deserved to be taken out. What about the leader of Iran that gave him his orders? Should we take him out since basically he is the top terrorist?
In general, I don't see how anyone thinks they have enough information to know whether or not this makes sense. There are so many questions here.We don't have enough information and that is the reason so many are split on this. If you can't even understand both positions on it that just compounds the problem.
Was this a grabbed opportunity?
Was this because of a specific threat?
Did his influence in the region make him a valuable target?
How does this affect Iran's influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza?
What was his role in Iran's internal politics?
and more.
We don't have enough information and that is the reason so many are split on this. If you can't even understand both positions on it that just compounds the problem.Anyone who can't understand a differing opinion that their own always compounds the problem. It is usually because they don't really understand their own opinion either.
Anyone who can't understand a differing opinion that their own always compounds the problem. It is usually because they don't really understand their own opinion either.Some are so sure what will happen here they want to bet on it. Now me on the other hand who bets on mostly anything would not touch this one. :)
Having any opinion at all with the amount of questions is simply ludicrous. This should not result in a split but rather in people being undecided.
Some are so sure what will happen here they want to bet on it. Now me on the other hand who bets on mostly anything would not touch this one. :)But the stated reason has nothing to do with the lack of information.
But the stated reason has nothing to do with the lack of information.Unless he has some inside info it sure is.
Unless he has some inside info it sure is.Who are you referring to as he?
Lets not forget past presidents R/D did not go down this road. They did have inside info. ;)
I don't bet when it comes to American lives and I will assume you didn't mean it that way.
Either way, The current POTUS has the same inside information that previous administrations had, but any previous POTUS only has outdated information.We have heard the current POTUS doesn't even read briefings. Also past presidents were not compulsive liars and ego maniacs like this one. How many past presidents claimed they knew more about everything that the experts?
We have heard the current POTUS doesn't even read briefings. Also past presidents were not compulsive liars and ego maniacs like this one. How many past presidents claimed they knew more about everything that the experts?So basically this all comes down to your previous opinions about Trump. Exactly what many here have been saying.
You probably never watched the apprentice but you should. He making decisions the same way he did on that show. He believes he knows better than anyone else. Very dangerous to have someone in charge like that.
So basically this all comes down to your previous opinions about Trump. Exactly what many here have been saying.1 - I believe this puts America at more risk no matter who made the decision.
1 - I believe this puts America at more risk no matter who made the decision.I don't see how you would know #1 without current inside information.
2 - I don't trust Trump to make decisions in the best interest of the country and believe he is bad for the our country.
3 - Like many here you can't separate the two. You would never make an impartial juror.
I don't see how you would know #1 without current inside information.You didn't really just say that, did you? I could have a field day with this but won't. :)
Seriously?
They can launch deadly cyber attacks against US soil
You didn't really just say that, did you? I could have a field day with this but won't. :)You are right. I didn't write that well. There is no way of knowing the risk/reward comparison without current inside information.
You are right. I didn't write that well. There is no way of knowing the risk/reward comparison without current inside information.Thank you as we all believe certain things based on the info we have. Somethings we believe are out of this world. ;)
Still believe Kap's a good guy?Who said he was a good guy? Do you understand what he is saying.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernick-attacks-us-imperialism-154109880.html
Who said he was a good guy? Do you understand what he is saying.He (Kap) definitely doesn't.
Now me on the other hand who bets on mostly anything would not touch this one. :)Probably because deep down you know we're right but your TDS won't accept it :P
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)In general I would agree that's often a problem, I don't think this is one of those cases.
Probably because deep down you know we're right but your TDS won't accept it :PKISS. You don't bet when it involves American lives.
KISS. You don't bet when it involves American lives.I thought it was because you don't have enough information?
We are still left with the question, why now?Him attacking a US embassy last week might have a little something to do with it.
He (Kap) definitely doesn't.I will take that as a no. There is part of the problem.
Him attacking a US embassy last week might have a little something to do with it.Then say that but they he said imminent attacks. We have yet to see a shred on evidence about that.
Then say that but they he said imminent attacks. We have yet to see a shred on evidence about that.And if we did we would hear all of the complaints about how it is endangering intelligence sources.
And if we did we would hear all of the complaints about how it is endangering intelligence sources.I agree but that has not stopped Trump from disclosing classified information before. Even the so-called briefing they gave congress there is no evidence. Pompeo when asked if it was days or weeks would not answer. DOD states it was to deter future attacks.
I agree but that has not stopped Trump from disclosing classified information before. Even the so-called briefing they gave congress there is no evidence. Pompeo when asked if it was days or weeks would not answer. DOD states it was to deter future attacks.There is no question that the administration's messaging has been very convoluted to put it mildly.
There is no question that the administration's messaging has been very convoluted to put it mildly.This plays into the belief that Trump is a compulsive liar.
This plays into the belief that Trump is a compulsive liar.You don't need to convince me about that one.
You don't need to convince me about that one.Not trying to. The problem is everything starts with he is a liar and goes from there. It should be just the opposite.
Is targeting cultural sites an international war crime?I heard a great line (I can't remember from who) way back in 2016. It was true back then and still holds true today.
"the left takes Trump literally, the right drinks the Kool-Aid.":)
Six hours apart. pic.twitter.com/rLgIGgPmtv
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 7, 2020
Nikki Haley: "The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates,"So true
So trueKeep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Is this what this country stands for?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-republican-blocks-unanimous-consent-on-resolution-calling-targeting-cultural-sites-a-war-crime/ar-BBYIxZ0?ocid=spartanntp
Did you bother reading the article?I sure did and I can spot BS a mile away.
Coalition base in iraq is currently under rocket attackand its not rockets, seems like ballistic missiles.
I sure did and I can spot BS a mile away.
BS or no BS, you basically believe that one senator is reflective of an entire party, correct?Absolutely not. Did you read the part from POTUS?
Absolutely not. Did you read the part from POTUS?
"If that's what the law is, I like to obey the law. But think of it. They kill our people. They blow up our people and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I'm OK with it. It's OK with me," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Is there anywhere to get reliable updates on whats going in now?You'll have to wait until the dust settles.
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Is there anywhere to get reliable updates on whats going in now?Turn on any network station.
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Turn on any network station.
Is there anywhere to get reliable updates on whats going in now?
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Please go drink the Kool-Aid somewhere else. American lives are at stake here!!! >:( >:( >:(
There is never any way to be sure it's reliable until the dust settles. Not specific to this situation.
Please go drink the Kool-Aid somewhere else. American lives are at stake here!!! >:( >:( >:(Not sure what you think he meant....
Not sure what you think he meant....He meant the same thing Trump means with #fakenews.
He meant the same thing Trump means with #fakenews.Possibly, but I didn't see that in his, or the quoted post
Turn on any network station.
Especially if you don't have a TV like most on DDF. :P
If the reports as of right now turn out to be true that there are no US Casualties, I believe if we were to take a national US vote I think most people would just say swallow what Iran just did to avoid an all out war.
12+ ballistic missiles at two different bases. We can only pray no Americans were killed and then both these lunatics can save face.Iran targeted the two bases with the least amount of Americans.
If the reports as of right now turn out to be true that there are no US Casualties, I believe if we were to take a national US vote I think most people would just say swallow what Iran just did to avoid an all out war.I agree on your point,
Please go drink the Kool-Aid somewhere else. American lives are at stake here!!! >:( >:( >:(Chill, Nobody is dying from my posts AFAIK,
Any word on casualties, I don't see any info anywherePrelim reports, no US casualties.
Prelim reports, no US casualties.BH. Calculated move I'm assuming.
FOX reporting POTUS probably will address the nation. That's not good.Now reporting he does not plan to address the nation. That's a good sign.
BH. Calculated move I'm assuming.It gives everyone an out.
The half that thinks it's the wrong thing to do, are the Democrats. I'm not saying that there isn't an argument against it, just pointing out that it's all about politics now...How about the I's or are they playing politics also?
Now who could've possibly seen that coming. :PBH. Calculated move I'm assuming.It gives everyone an out.
(I'm probably gonna regret speaking too soon, but)Not 99% of those in this thread. :)
It gives everyone an out.
Now who could've possibly seen that coming. :P
Gotta start contemplating if this "response" was consented to by the US.Someone shoot me and put me out of my misery!!!
Someone shoot me and put me out of my misery!!!
who says no?So the US tells Iran you can attack these two bases but don't kill any Americans?
How about the I's or are they playing politics also?In the age of Trump it has more to do with support of Trump than with party affiliation.
So the US tells Iran you can attack these two bases but don't kill any Americans?I find this idea very funny, even if the whole situation isn't.
I find this idea very funny, even if the whole situation isn't.That's not my idea of what happened.
In the age of Trump it has more to do with support of Trump than with party affiliation.The I's go both way. They can love him on the economy and hate him on immigration.
The I's go both way. They can love him on the economy and hate him on immigration.Some
So the US tells Iran you can attack these two bases but don't kill any Americans?
BH. Calculated move I'm assuming.Thought so too. However reports now are saying that there were US forces on the ground, thankfully they had enough time to run for cover because US radars picked up the incoming missile.
Thought so too. However reports now are saying that there were US forces on the ground, thankfully they had enough time to run for cover because US radars picked up the incoming missile.
What were the iranians thinking? :o
If only a bunch of US soldiers would CH"V be killed there would've been a major war now...
If you believe that Iran missing US troops was either luck or bad aim then I have a bridge to sell youThe point is that with radicals you never know.
How did the US missile defense system fail so miserably?I wonder about that too. It did nothing toward protecting the Saudi refinery either.
The point is that with radicals you never know.I just find it hard to believe that Iran would make a rational decision like that. Usually you don’t think clearly when your so mad.
The only conspiracy theory which could work is that the US secretly negotiated with Iran that they will let them attack a US base in order to go on with life and the US took precautions to make sure no lives are at risk and from the US side there is no need to respond militarily since no US lives were harmed and tensions calm down and life goes on.
But if this is not true, then Iran was just very lucky here. I mean even as careful as they try to be they should have thought that there is 1 percent chance that an American WILL somehow be in harms way and that would be the beginning of their end.
Hence my question. What were they thinking....
I just find it hard to believe that Iran would make a rational decision like that. Usually you don’t think clearly when your so mad.
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....The country has been but the current government has not.
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....But thus regime might be suicidal, They believe something about the 7th imam or something like that... ( some type of moshiach)
Reminds me of the story earlier this year when Israel attacked Hezbollah and they shot back and Israel pretended that they hit a bunch of soldiers.....This most probbly is the end of this segment of the US-Iran tensions. We can now close this thread.....oh and Count Valentine stop being a hysteric. The world is still standing!Keep your head buried in the sand. You and many here have shown how clueless you have been so far.
Usually you don’t think clearly when your so mad.They are not Trump.
Keep your head buried in the sand. You and many here have shown how clueless you have been so far.
So far the only clueless one is you. I remember back when he moved the embassy how you were yelling about how bad it would be and how dangerous Israel would become. You said the same about the Iran deal...Like I said you are a hysteric.Why the labels? The term “democrat” suffices
So far the only clueless one is you. I remember back when he moved the embassy how you were yelling about how bad it would be and how dangerous Israel would become. You said the same about the Iran deal...Like I said you are a hysteric.I said moving the embassy would make peace harder. CORRECT!!!
Why the labels? The term “democrat” suffices
Why the labels? The term “democrat” suffices...an anti-American for the rest. :P
I said moving the embassy would make peace harder. CORRECT!!!
I said the pulling out of the Iran deal would make things worse. CORRECT!!!
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. CORRECT!!!
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been this biggest military blunder in modern history.
LOL wow you really are insane.Insane is someone who asks a stupid question like this?
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.Keep drinking the Kool-Aid!!!
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
FTFY
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. MORE INFO NEEDED!!!
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
great way to try and dramatize, but i'm not going to fall for it. Have yourself a wonderful day.So you get called out and then try and clean it up.
p.s. thoughts and prayers to those who perished on the plane crash, as well as to their families.
So you get called out and then try and clean it up.
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.Where did he do that?
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.Now you have to make up lies to try and cover your tracks. Who blamed the plane crash on Trump?
FTFY
War will cause American deaths.
I am convinced like past R/D Presidents it is not worth the risk.
Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.This is the danger with these Kool-Aid drinkers. Just like Trump they make up lies to try and discredit someone.
This is the danger with these Kool-Aid drinkers. Just like Trump they make up lies to try and discredit someone.
Lets see if is just like Trump he refuses to apologize for the made up lie.
Was it Obamas fault that he did not deal with Russia when they invaded Ukraine and shot down the MH plane? Please leave Trump out of the picture when it comes to the Plane.
Was it Obamas fault that he did not deal with Russia when they invaded Ukraine and shot down the MH plane? Please leave Trump out of the picture when it comes to the Plane.What are you talking about? Now you are believing and repeating the lies.
Ultimately it comes down to thisIran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
I guess if WW3 really does break out I'll have to add a big serving of crow to all my other problems (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)With all the crow being served in this thread there will be none left for you if it does happen.
Close up again processed by @MIIS shows BDA of the direct hit on what appears to be aircraft tent shelters. pic.twitter.com/8QuRjX6oUm
— Aurora Intel (@AuroraIntel) January 8, 2020
@CountValentine as a side note. Please keep your cool. Don't repeatedly label everyone who disagrees with you as a kool-aid drinker & as head in sand burying.I am as cool as a cucumber. Can I label those who make up blatant lies as liars?
Can I label those who make up blatant lies as liars?Wasn't referring to that one
How about the I's or are they playing politics also?
How did the US missile defense system fail so miserably?
I wonder about that too. It did nothing toward protecting the Saudi refinery either.
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....
I said moving the embassy would make peace harder. CORRECT!!!
I said the pulling out of the Iran deal would make things worse. CORRECT!!!
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. CORRECT!!!
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
...and lets not forget the main issue now. Is Americans safer now?
Insane is someone who asks a stupid question like this?
What repercussions can Iran do to the USA?
Insane is someone that thinks this terrorist cause more American deaths than OBL.
Please change your nic to Anti-American.
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
I'm still standing by this.
I guess if WW3 really does break out I'll have to add a big serving of crow to all my other problems (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)
"The Iraqi Prime Minister's office said it was given verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack happened."
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
With all the crow being served in this thread there will be none left for you if it does happen.Eh, even you can't eat so much all on your own, I'm sure there'll be some left over.
"The Iraqi Prime Minister's office said it was given verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack happened."I was going to let this go but you are completely delusional.
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Too bad some people didn't want to bet, but I'll still send the crow.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
Wasn't referring to that one...but I am. You brought the question of labels up so how about answering my question?
I was going to let this go but you are completely delusional.Could be. But I'm of the few Americans not affected by Trumpster syndrome or TDS.
Could be. But I'm of the few Americans not affected by Trumpster syndrome or TDS....but when you try to spin something to fit your scenario it is just as bad. There is 10+ possibilities what happened and you pick one that fits your scenario.
By all means, prove I'm wrong.You just need to pull your head out of the sand and stop drinking the kool aid and you'll see that you're wrong.
trump just started speaking not fire and brimstone but not the most deescalating comments eitherLooks like he was warned not to divulge any secrets
By all means, prove I'm wrong.One possibility is Iran sent a message to the US they can strike US anytime in the Middle East and we can't do anything about it. Our threats were completely meaningless. No one thought (even you) they would be so blatant and launch from Iran. I can give ten other scenarios that don't fit your position but is it really needed?
You just need to pull your head out of the sand and stop drinking the kool aid and you'll see that you're wrong.I remember seeing these comments somewhere...LOL
"The Iraqi Prime Minister's office said it was given verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack happened."While I don't know if they were tipped off, I think it's obvious that Iran knowing US capabilities knew that they would have time to run for cover...
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Too bad some people didn't want to bet, but I'll still send the crow.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
trump just started speaking not fire and brimstone but not the most deescalating comments eithercorrection was pretty deescalating
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.
Shall we put $20 on it?
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.No. The reason is because he feels that Americans will be safer now that if he doesn't respond...
While I don't know if they were tipped off, I think it's obvious that Iran knowing US capabilities knew that they would have time to run for cover...They did not target American lives. Now you can spin this to fit your scenario as some have already done.
Don't forget that all the US bases we're on high alert and they were probably ready for such a response.
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.thats a pretty far right spin %95 of ppl agree with exactly what he just said
No. The reason is because he feels that Americans will be safer now that if he doesn't respond...Thanks for proving my point on how this can be spun many different ways.
thats a pretty far right spin %95 of ppl agree with exactly what he just saidWhat is far fetched?
IDK about a war in Iran, what I certainly do see, is a war between @CountValentine alone against most DDF'ers.Bring it on!!! :)
correction was pretty deescalatingThat's a PC way to put it.
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at Israel? What would their response be?Well judging by last fifteen years, I would say usually pretty much nothing.
Well judging by last fifteen years, I would say usually pretty much nothing.Wow! I got the impression from members here they always respond and sometimes disproportionally.
They did not target American lives. Now you can spin this to fit your scenario as some have already done.Not sure what your point is
Thanks for proving my point on how this can be spun many different ways.The ones that decried the attack with be the ones to call him coward now... There's no spin. You either hate him or love him..
Since I am clueless what goes on in that region can someone help me out?It depends.
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at Israel? What would their response be?
Since I am clueless what goes on in that region can someone help me out?FTFY
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at the US? What would their response be?
Not sure what your point isThat you can spin it to fit your scenario.
That you can spin it to fit your scenario.So in other words they didn't do any real harm, everybody gets to claim victory, and we all go back home and argue about impeachment again.
We're not betting on American lives. You seem convinced this will lead to a declaration of war. I think the opposite is true.
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.
Coming from Mr. Goalposts
...but we do goalposts!!!We just change them.
As a wise man said:We just change them.You conveniently left out your quote about the original offer.
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.Yes their action was dumb enough to get into a war. Just because Trump backed down does not change that fact.
Shall we put $20 on it?
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)That's an unfair characterization. At least half of the DDFers in the thread were against backing out for all sorts of reasons, including religious ones.
You conveniently left out your quote about the original offer. Yes their action was dumb enough to get into a war. Just because Trump backed down does not change that fact.So you're saying you think that they were trying to cause more damage than they did with this strike, (something that would necessitate a strong US response) they just failed miserably?
No they didn't think twice about messing with the US. They even launched from Iran so there was no mistake who took this action.
So on those two points you were wrong. As far as saving American lives that needs to be seen.
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)
That's an unfair characterization. At least half of the DDFers in the thread were against backing out for all sorts of reasons, including religious ones.I said "like others" meaning others made that argument which is accurate. With that said I was joking and don't think Dan or others I have bet with would ever do that.
That's an unfair characterization. At least half of the DDFers in the thread were against backing out for all sorts of reasons, including religious ones.i would say i lot of ppl talked the talk but didnt walk the walk
You conveniently left out your quote about the original offer. Yes their action was dumb enough to get into a war. Just because Trump backed down does not change that fact.Yes, it sure looks like war to give a warning and kill zero Americans.
No they didn't think twice about messing with the US. They even launched from Iran so there was no mistake who took this action.
So on those two points you were wrong. As far as saving American lives that needs to be seen.
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)
So you're saying you think that they were trying to cause more damage than they did with this strike, (something that would necessitate a strong US response) they just failed miserably?No one knows at this point. I believe they targeted military assets. They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use. This was an act of war. I am grateful Trump backed down. You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further. So please bookmark this when the lies start/continue that I never give him credit.
Yes, it sure looks like war to give a warning and kill zero Americans.They targeted American military assets from Iran and you don't consider that an act of war. If that is way you look at it so be it.
No one knows at this point. I believe they targeted military assets. They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use. This was an act of war. I am grateful Trump backed down. You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further. So please bookmark this when the lies start/continue that I never give him credit.
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.lol. Bookmarked this.
lol. Bookmarked this.Fine, I gave him 100% credit. What's your point that I called him a "coward"? What do you call a draft dodger?
Fine, I gave him 100% credit. What's your point that I called him a "coward"? What do you call a draft dodger?Why didn't you call him "our orange haired president" or "IMPOTUS"? You were calling him a coward in that context. Then you felt the squeeze and
As a wise man said::D...but we do goalposts!!!We just change them.
Why didn't you call him "our orange haired president" or "IMPOTUS"? You were calling him a coward in that context. Then you felt the squeeze andWe just change them.You ignore this part of the comment "See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to" because you are dishonest.
:D
They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use.You're totally ignoring the main part of those predictions.
Iran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
They talk a big talk but at the end of the day their #1 goal is to stay in power. The last thing they want is all out war with the US. Because whatever the ultimate result of that would be, one thing that's absolutely certain is that the current regime will be knocked out.then there's also this:
Proxies never made sense. That would be a real revenge not just a continuation of their loud mouthing and they wouldn't be showing their citizens that anything was done. Now they can tell their citizen that they did something.I agree with this (20/20 hindsight) although I still think they'll use proxies to try for some real revenge.
This is of course 20/20 hindsight.
You're totally ignoring the main part of those predictions.Are you disagreeing that attacking American military assets from Iran is not an act of war?
You ignore this part of the comment "See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to" because you are dishonest.How do you lose a bet based off of a spin.
Why do you always back up other Jews against anything I say? Do you hate now Jews that much?Problems is, I only see you arguing with Jews.
See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to;D
How do you lose a bet based off of a spin.You lose a bet by being wrong. Read the original bet and stop trying to spin it.
You lose a bet by being wrong. Read the original bet and stop trying to spin it.See my edit. I wasn't getting involved in the actual argument.
Was Iran's action an act of war?
See my edit. I wasn't getting involved in the actual argument.No you were trying to twist the outcome of a bet that I never took.
Yes, it sure looks like war to give a warning and kill zero Americans.
Are you disagreeing that attacking American military assets from Iran is not an act of war?Gee, well if Lindsey Graham said it's an act of war, then I guess we should send in the troops ::)
This might help you: “This was an act of war, Sean, by any reasonable definition,” Graham continued, before declaring that “the President has all the authority he needs under Article II to respond. How he responds is yet to be determined.”
No you were trying to twist the outcome of a bet that I never took.My point was not the bet at all. My point was that originally you were criticizing Orangutan for being a coward and not responding. Then, for whatever reason, when it was convenient for you, you give him credit for the very same act. And made sure to loudly proclaim the
You agree it was an act of war but say I would have lost the bet? That I am trying to twist into a pretzel when you agree it was an act of war. ::)
You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further.
Why don't you attack Dan who claims it wasn't an attack of war? You disagree with him so whats up? Can it be he is a Jew and I am not? @chinagelDon''t bite the hand that feeds you. ;D
My point was not the bet at all. My point was that originally you were criticizing Orangutan for being a coward and not responding. Then, for whatever reason, when it was convenient for you, you give him credit for the very same act. And made sure to loudly proclaim theHe is the reason we are not at war and he gets 100% of the credit. If I call him coward, scumbag, Kool-Aid drinker or a 100+ different names how does that change what I said about giving him credit?
Gee, well if Lindsey Graham said it's an act of war, then I guess we should send in the troops ::)So simple to understand, I'm surprised anyone can get this wrong.
Let's ignore all the posturing and strutting on both sides and focus on the bottom line. So far Iran seems to be trying to (push the envelope as far as can and still) avoid a real war. Which is what Dan & I have both been saying all along they would do. It seems to me the "bet" was whether it escalates into a full-blown war, not whether Iran commits an "act of war" without killing Americans.
Thankfully, I don't think too many are confused about the difference between war and an act of war. Most people wouldn't call someone drunk because they sipped an oz of beer, which is indeed part of the process of getting drunk. Most people here have been saying these escalations will not become a war, and that seems to be likely.To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.None of which means we are at war.
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.So you are grateful he is a coward?
@CountValentine You really think he is a coward for not responding to the missile strike?NO!!! It was the right thing to do and in the best interest of the US.
So you are grateful he is a coward?Give me time to respond to one question before asking another. ;)
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.
So in other words they didn't do any real harm, everybody gets to claim victory, and we all go back home and argue about impeachment again.
So remind me again why this is all so terrible?
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?
Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?You mean by proxies?
You mean by proxies?Still genuinely wondering, not stoking the flames, but why would that make a difference? I don't think anyone questioned who was behind those attacks. Can war not spur from proxy attacks?
NO!!! It was the right thing to do and in the best interest of the US.So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?
He is a coward for being a draft dodger. If you know anyone that serve in the US military ask them if they consider a draft dodger a coward.
None of which means we are at war.I think I got it now. What you meant was that Iran is dumb enough to commit an act of war but Trump would not bite? :)
So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?Seriously, no.
Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?Apparently in the anti-Trump world Iran & Suleimani were just sitting around minding their own business when all of the sudden, out of the blue, Trump decided to randomly kill Suleimani because he wanted to start WW3.
Still genuinely wondering, not stoking the flames, but why would that make a difference? I don't think anyone questioned who was behind those attacks. Can war not spur from proxy attacks?It gives them deniability and something the members here love, word games.
You mean by proxies?Well to be fair, Suleimani was killed while in Iraq in the company of said proxies.
Apparently in the anti-Trump world Iran & Suleimani were just sitting around minding their own business when all of the sudden, out of the blue, Trump decided to randomly kill Suleimani because he wanted to start WW3.Wait Trump been president for 3 years and all of a sudden he decides to take out this bad guy? The 3 previous years he didn't kill anyone?
(and then when they sent a few missiles to Iraq Trump saw the harm they caused and got all scared of their tremendous military might and backed down like a coward.)
Wait Trump been president for 3 years and all of a sudden he decides to take out this bad guy? The 3 previous years he didn't kill anyone?It must be because he wanted to divert attention from impeachment, considering how impeachment has been killing him in the polls and decimating his fundraising.
Well to be fair, Suleimani was killed while in Iraq in the company of said proxies.So killing a government official outside their country is not as serious as killing them in their country?
Had he been killed in Iran (which never would've happened) it would be a whole different ball game.
I think I got it now. What you meant was that Iran is smart enough to commit an act of war, without casualties that would compel Trump to bite? :)ftfy
It must be because he wanted to divert attention from impeachment, considering how impeachment has been killing him in the polls and decimating his fundraising.We still have no reason except conflicting reports from the WH and DOD. So while you joke do have the reason why it happened now?
ftfyMan that is a ton different from what you wrote in the original bet. Since you are a fair person I will take your word that is what you meant. Just like Trump I will respond no further on this. :)
Man that is a ton different from what you wrote in the original bet. Since you are a fair person I will take your word that is what you meant. Just like Trump I will respond no further on this. :)It's not at all. But OK.
Now you have to make up lies to try and cover your tracks. Who blamed the plane crash on Trump?
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.Why do you keep quoting me in your lies?
Why do you keep quoting me in your lies?
Are you going to man enough to apologizes for your lies against me?
Do you even know what your talking about?I never mentioned planes or blamed Trump for any plane crash but you keep making up lies saying I did. Why do you keep quoting me perpetuating this lie?
So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?
Seriously, no.
I won't say you're a liar but you're definitely getting lost in this turmoil
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.Are you confusing him with me?
Best week for Trump since the Muller report.
I won't say you're a liar but you're definitely getting lost in this turmoilHow about @dealfinder11 you going to call him a liar for making up lies against me?
How about @dealfinder11 you going to call him a liar for making up lies against me?Depends if he's Jewish, ;)
How about @dealfinder11 you going to call him a liar for making up lies against me?Be happy I'm holding you to higher standards ;D
Depends if he's Jewish, ;)Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".
Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".With you on this one. Don't take it to heart. :P
Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".Talk about taking words out of context
I won't say you're a liar but you're definitely getting lost in this turmoil
With you on this one. Don't take it to heart.I will try not to as long as you don't take anti-Semitism to heart. ;D
Talk about taking words out of contextMaybe you should read what the great ones on this board have said about using "but".
I will try not to as long as you don't take anti-Semitism to heart. ;DI don't.
Putting the grin makes the comment ok, right?
Lets put it like this: An Iran proxy shot at a US military base killing an American contractor and wounding some US serviceman, So the US went and killed 25 of that terrorists proxy, Then based on the American intelligence this Soleimani guy organized the attack on the US embassy, So Trump took the bold move to finely eliminate him as he was also responsible for 100s of deaths of American Soldiers, So as of now Iran targets American military bases In Iraq and may have damaged some stuff there, but thank G-D no deaths.You are late to the party but very well thought out.
Now let me say this, if it would have started with Iran targeting the American military bases in Iraq even if there were no deaths then there would have been a major retaliation on Iran, but the fact that it happened after they killed Soleimani the US/Trump feels that if by not retaliating would stop an all out war even tho Iran could feel proud that they attacked a military base then so be it. But if they try attacking again in a few weeks a few months they would suffer a great response.
Just my thoughts!
Maybe you should read what the great ones on this board have said about using "but".Haha.. But in this case you should appreciate the "but", I don't think anyone else understood it otherwise and still I tried my best not accusing you as a liar ;)
It is not the Jews fault they are getting attacked but...
You get the picture?
So while you joke do have the reason why it happened now?I have no idea.
Haha.. But in this case you should appreciate the "but", I don't think anyone else understood it otherwise and still I tried my best not accusing you as a liar ;)The best why to do that was not to mention the word. Still waiting for you to call out @dealfinder11 lies. I can provide links so there is no confusion if you like.
The best why to do that was not to mention the word. Still waiting for you to call out @dealfinder11 lies. I can provide links so there is no confusion if you like.You can provide links to something you never said? :-\
I have no idea.We agree on this one.
You can provide links to something you never said? :-\This is how you twists things continually. I can provide links to his lies.
This is how you twists things continually. I can provide links to his lies.No need, comment was fine without it. ;D
You sure you are not a white supremacist to get people to hate Jews? ;D
I put a grin so that makes the comment ok.
Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".Just a thought. I agree with you at times, and disagree at times. I have different views than many here have. I don't get involved in the political arguments, because people decide to think things of others based on their political stances, secondly, because I can't recall a time when a political argument ended with one side agreeing with the other, and 3rd, because most of these arguments come from emotion, over facts (which are typically unavailable to some extent.) You tend take up opinions that differ from most here (quite possibly a result of the different upbringing/lives you, and many here lead) which leads to you getting "ganged up on" as it would appear. I don't think it's a Jewish/not Jewish thing, but more of a difference in opinion. Part of it is probably also how you tend to argue. If you believe what you say (you seem to) why have these arguments here? This isn't the first time (IIRC) that you've made a comment like this, so why bother engaging with those individuals who you often call "cool aid drinkers" or "head in the sand"? Not trying to argue, agree, disagree, or hate, just trying to offer some insight. Hope this doesn't come across different from how I intended it to.
Just a thought. I agree with you at times, and disagree at times. I have different views than many here have. I don't get involved in the political arguments, because people decide to think things of others based on their political stances, secondly, because I can't recall a time when a political argument ended with one side agreeing with the other, and 3rd, because most of these arguments come from emotion, over facts (which are typically unavailable to some extent.) You tend take up opinions that differ from most here (quite possibly a result of the different upbringing/lives you, and many here lead) which leads to you getting "ganged up on" as it would appear. I don't think it's a Jewish/not Jewish thing, but more of a difference in opinion. Part of it is probably also how you tend to argue. If you believe what you say (you seem to) why have these arguments here? This isn't the first time (IIRC) that you've made a comment like this, so why bother engaging with those individuals who you often call "cool aid drinkers" or "head in the sand"? Not trying to argue, agree, disagree, or hate, just trying to offer some insight. Hope this doesn't come across different from how I intended it to.What you say makes sense and I fully understand. This is my outlet while I MS/trade from my computer (no PM's). So far I did a ton of trades today.
Like others said, I think it was just an opportunity to do it now and they figured aw what the heckLOL "but" it seems the way this WH operates.
What you say makes sense and I fully understand. This is my outlet while I MS/trade from my computer (no PM's). So far I did a ton of trades today.I hear ya. This thread didn't start as a hardcore political conversation, which is the only reason I clicked on it. I can't speak for others, or other threads that I'm not involved in. My guess is, that being that so many are arguing with you specifically (a direct result of you voicing your differing opinion, which is a minority opinion here it seems) , anything you say, will be torn apart much more than someone throwing in a random comment. More people are focusing on your comments than others as they are directly engaging with you ;D
My point is if you are in these discussions and you see me make something up about someone call me out on it. Also if the opposite happens call them out on it also. The problem is the second part rarely if ever happens.
BREAKING: Initial reports of a rocket attack in or near the U.S. embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq
Maybe this isn't over...Where is that from.
Where is that from.I was forwarded it from Belaaz. Not sure where they got it.
You can provide links to something you never said? :-\yes. Just like he did over here.
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.
Best week for Trump since the Muller report.
Are you confusing him with me?
Amazing all you can go to is how this affects Trump politically.
the past president8)
What you say makes sense and I fully understand. This is my outlet while I MS/trade from my computer (no PM's). So far I did a ton of trades today.Sounds like you need to get out more.
My point is if you are in these discussions and you see me make something up about someone call me out on it. Also if the opposite happens call them out on it also. The problem is the second part rarely if ever happens.
8)Amazing how silent you have been since then. :)
Sounds like you need to get out more.Mostly at night but I am do for a vacation.
Does the US have no missile defense capabilities?Not after they sent them all to Israel. :P
Amazing how silent you have been since then. :)not the case.
Not after they sent them all to Israel. :PSo that's a no?
Not after they sent them all to Israel. :PThey were developed by Israel IIRC.
They were developed by Israel IIRC.The original during the Iraq war?
im so thankful that This guy was taken out. it gave @CountValentine another thread to be busy with! :DThe guy's head coming off was just a psik reisha d'nicha lei :)
im so thankful that This guy was taken out. it gave @CountValentine another thread to be busy with! :D
im so thankful that This guy was taken out. it gave @CountValentine another thread to be busy with! :DI will be back in the others. Just a temporary detour. Going to have to harp on the COWARD part in the political thread. :P
I want to know how you all have so much time for this?? This thread has been active almost every minute for the last 24 - 36 hours
Never take a job, it takes up too much free time.
I want to know how you all have so much time for this?? This thread has been active almost every minute for the last 24 - 36 hoursMarkets, Netfix and Amazon Prime.
I would give you guys movie suggestions but kind of useless without a TV.Market suggestions?
Market suggestions?To late now but short Au.
To late now but short Au.
:D :D :DI said unethical for me to buy when I need a war for it to go up. No issue shorting it when you are hoping for peace to make money.
a) I love it when threads come together
b) If it's unethical for you to trade it, surely its unethical for you to advise someone else to do it
Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said unethical for me to buy when I need a war for it to go up. No issue shorting it when you are hoping for peace to make money.I get that you're on edge, but loosen up a little. I understood your previous comment the same way he did. Thanks for clarifying ;D
Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said unethical for me to buy when I need a war for it to go up. No issue shorting it when you are hoping for peace to make money.The differences between buying and shorting. lol.
I get that you're on edge, but loosen up a little. I understood your previous comment the same way he did. Thanks for clarifying ;DI am loose. I didn't say liar. :)
I am loose. I didn't say liar. :)Ok Mr. Cumber! ;D
We discussed this in the ethical thread and we are cool as cucumbers!
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
great way to try and dramatize, but i'm not going to fall for it. Have yourself a wonderful day.
p.s. thoughts and prayers to those who perished on the plane crash, as well as to their families.
So you get called out and then try and clean it up.
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.I once again refute that notion. "par for the course" was refering back to @aygart comment that my statement was "sad", insinuating those with my opinion are heartless.
I never mentioned planes or blamed Trump for any plane crash but you keep making up lies saying I did. Why do you keep quoting me perpetuating this lie?
Are you confusing him with me?
Amazing all you can go to is how this affects Trump politically.
No you did not. I wasn't talking to you. I was commenting back to @aygart. sheesh.Let me explain it so even someone with a half a brain cell can understand. Hopefully that will be dumbed down enough for you to understand.
Let me explain it so even someone with a half a brain cell can understand. Hopefully that will be dumbed down enough for you to understand.
You don't quote someone and then try and say you were not talking to them. Just say you accidently quoted the wrong person. The problem now is you dug your whole so deep you can't get out of it. Either way have yourself a good evening.
I am going to take a wild guess from your post as say you are a Trump supporter?Not really.
What is this about shooting down the plane, link?
I am going to take a wild guess from your post as say you are a Trump supporter?
Depends on the size donation the now defunct Clinton Foundation would've gotten.
I do wonder how Hillary would've handled these situations.
No one knows at this point. I believe they targeted military assets. They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use. This was an act of war. I am grateful Trump backed down. You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further. So please bookmark this when the lies start/continue that I never give him credit.
Like I said earlier in the thread. This attack is the same thing that happened after Israel killed a top hezbollah commander. They retaliated and Israel pretended that soldiers got hurt and that was the end of it. The US just did the same thing. Seems to have worked based on Mr Valentines hysterics that we were attacked with war like attacks.....well played Mr President!Do you really believe firing missiles at a US army base isn't warlike?
Do you really believe firing missiles at a US army base isn't warlike?
If it was just a random attack it would definitely be warlike but after what we did to them I think its just allowing the children to fight back a little and then say enough.Why does it change based on what we did before?
Why does it change based on what we did before?
it is called tit for tat. See what I wrote about Israel and Hezbollah.Tit for tat doesn't make it less warlike.
Mob storming an embassy is very different from ballistic missiles attacking US forces.I still don`t see which forces were attacked if no one got killed and they warned before
Like I said earlier in the thread. This attack is the same thing that happened after Israel killed a top hezbollah commander. They retaliated and Israel pretended that soldiers got hurt and that was the end of it. The US just did the same thing. Seems to have worked based on Mr Valentines hysterics that we were attacked with war like attacks.....well played Mr President!Well said!
Tit for tat doesn't make it less warlike.
Warlike means we go to war over what happens. Tit for Tat is letting them tell their constituents (like @CountValentine ) that they have harmed/killed/destroyed US forces, even though its a lie. Dictators need these type of victories in order to impress and quiet down the people.....It really is quite simple to understand.+1
Bottom line is that Mr. Trump has everybody in his pocket and does what he wants without asking. Everytime he does something everyone barks but do nothing (I forgot about impeachment) and he stays the winner by his people. Whatever critics ever said bad about him came out to be good. Now about the killing I think it was a great think to get rid of that trash, and it costed the US some money in damage... which that murder would have and had done more himself. Best of all Trump got his media coverage he needed.... so for now lets go back on disscusing impeachment etc.Busy with lives on the line and best of all Trump got his media coverage? I can't believe how so many couldn't care less about US lives as long as Trump.... :o :o :o
Busy with lives on the line and best of all Trump got his media coverage? I can't believe how so many couldn't care less about US lives as long as Trump.... :o :o :o
Dont be stupid, nobody doesn't care about US lives. They were in more danger with the terrorist alive then with him dead. The overall good outweighed the risk of a few missiles.
Busy with lives on the line and best of all Trump got his media coverage? I can't believe how so many couldn't care less about US lives as long as Trump.... :o :o :oIn my opinion the most lifes on the line were when this arch terrorist was alive!
An argument could be made, in my opinion a legitimate one, that the good of Soleimani dead outweighs the risk of retaliation which could potentially kill Americans, a major consideration being how many. It is a decision that must be taken with utmost deliberation and your use of the words "a few missiles" conveys a cavalierness that I hope was unintentional, even though in this particular case, so far, no Americans were killed.Again no one knows what will be or whould have been, this terrorist killed in the last decade much more people then you could count but some signs you may pick up like that the US new before the attack and that no one got killed like the Americans need to be fed news so do the Iranians.
Dont be stupid, nobody doesn't care about US lives. They were in more danger with the terrorist alive then with him dead. The overall good outweighed the risk of a few missiles.
In my opinion the most lifes on the line were when this arch terrorist was alive!Very possible but then leave Trump and the media out of it. If it saved American lives isn't that the best part and not some stupidity between Trump and the media?
Again no one knows what will be or whould have been, this terrorist killed in the last decade much more people then you could count but some signs you may pick up like that the US new before the attack and that no one got killed like the Americans need to be fed news so do the Iranians.
would you want the embassy to be attacked first again with 20 killed and then everyone will scream Trump didn`t do anything last time so they picked it up a notch?
Did you read my post? This has nothing to do with what I wrote.Yeah but Trump pulled one on the media.
Very possible but then leave Trump and the media out of it. If it saved American lives isn't that the best part and not some stupidity between Trump and the media?Don`t get me wrong there is two ways we could look at it or in anything what Trump does. He does things which you could take as a benefit for USA or for his benefit or both
Even with lives saved all you seem to care about is Trump not the lives saved.
Warlike means we go to war over what happens.Not true. But if that's what you meant then I get your point.
More sanctions placed on IranHOW CAN THEY HAVE NOT PLACED EVERY POSSIBLE SANCTION ON THIS EVIL REGIME YET???!!!
Don`t get me wrong there is two ways we could look at it or in anything what Trump does. He does things which you could take as a benefit for USA or for his benefit or both
But you cannot say because your`e anti-trump that whatever he does is not good. What you could say is that he puts a focus on things for his benefit.
In short: There were 2 good things out of it... and because of that most critics would complain while looking away from the good side
My Opinion: There are enough people taking care on this thread for Trumps Foreign policy so I should be taking care of the second benefit!
I really find it odd so many here believe killing this terrorist will save lives. Like the guy who took his place isn't just as bad or worse. Or the orders don't come from the top. Was this guy some great master mind that was irreplaceable?There are those discussing how his influence was integral to the relationships with Syria and Hezbollah
There are those discussing how his influence was integral to the relationships with Syria and HezbollahSo he was a great military mind that can't be replaced that easily?
So he was a great military mind that can't be replaced that easily?Not sure if it was the military aspect of it but that is what some are saying. A bunch of underlings were also killed with him.
Not sure if it was the military aspect of it but that is what some are saying. A bunch of underlings were also killed with him.There is this saying about cockroaches. ;)
That is like talking about a prospective shidduch who has so many maalos. She is a yirei shomayim, has good middos, is smart, etc. But all you talk about is how she knows how to play a cello.well it depends how many people are repeating the same thing
So he was a great military mind that can't be replaced that easily?
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/476736-targeting-soleimani-trump-was-justified-legally-and-strategicallyHas that worked with other terrorist groups? As we pull out of the ME don't they just come back.
"President Trump’s strategy is to remove the enemy’s most effective military asset (who will not be easily replaceable), to demonstrate to the mullahs what can happen when resolve backs our exponentially superior capabilities and to continue squeezing the regime with punishing economic sanctions — as it is pressured by the increasingly restive Iranian people."
Reading through the comments, and don't mean to hijack this thread, but take the two statements:I think you got it all wrong.
- The Sky is Red
- The sky is blue
We all know which one is true, and which is false. Yet somehow I feel that how much you believe each statement depends on which side you are on and which side it came from. If your side said the sky is red, you'd believe it wholeheartedly.
You'd completely ignore the true facts (or convince yourself that they were false) to support "your side"
Has that worked with other terrorist groups? As we pull out of the ME don't they just come back.
Did I tell you the cockroach story? :)
Has that worked with other terrorist groups? As we pull out of the ME don't they just come back.In Israel it works the only things the leaders are scared from is death and removal of their positions when Israel starts Target killings they always come to the table and I hope US will start the same tactic
Did I tell you the cockroach story? :)
well it depends how many people are repeating the same thingAhh okay does your wife play cello?
Do you believe you should never kill a cockroach since you'll never get them all?Yes you kill the cockroaches after you calculate risk vs reward.
Since there is currently no obvious total solution to Islamic Terrorism should we surrender to it's desire to impose a worldwide caliphate?
Yes you kill the cockroaches after you calculate risk vs reward.Never saw a risk in killing cockroaches unless youre a smaller BUG!!
There are situations where risk vs reward does not come into play.
Ahh okay does your wife play cello?Meanwhile not! you could go teach it to her because she is somewhere around DDF looking for me
Meanwhile not! you could go teach it to her because she is somewhere around DDF looking for meHow do you manage without such an important maalo?
Never saw a risk in killing cockroaches unless youre a smaller BUG!!So you believe might makes right?
So you believe might makes right?If you will put all your points together you see that your`e wrong
If you will put all your points together you see that your`e wrongSo your sky is red? :)
So your sky is red? :)The sky is colorless, it's merely a reflection of what it is facing.
The sky is colorless, it's merely a reflection of what it is facing.Ok your sky is colorless so now we have three choices so far.
Ok your sky is colorless so now we have three choices so far.4. There's no such thing as a sky, you're merely staring into the abyss.
4. There's no such thing as a sky, you're merely staring into the abyss.I am sure you are.
5. The sky is really pink, there's just something blue/red/colorless blocking your view of the sky.
Any options I missed?
I don`t know what color the sky is I think youre all right because there are 7 skys (or more) and G-d is on top and I let each of you have a pick for oneWe have 39 pages of everyone protecting their own corner and you want something more productive?
p.s. at least you switched the topic to something more productive
I really find it odd so many here believe killing this terrorist will save lives. Like the guy who took his place isn't just as bad or worse. Or the orders don't come from the top. Was this guy some great master mind that was irreplaceable?Of course it will. Soleimani had a very strong handle on numerous militias. The next guy will at the very least have to do a lot of leg work to build trust across numerous factions who, in other circumstances, would be enemies. And that's assuming that the Quds have a smooth transition and there isn't any internal vying for power.
We have 39 pages of everyone protecting their own corner and you want something more productive?What corner am I protecting?
You want to discuss how this tit for tat resulted in a plane of innocent people dying?
What corner am I protecting?You were the guy with gasoline going to each corner. :)
You were the guy with gasoline going to each corner. :)I took your spot?
I took your spot?Hey, there's room for The both of you.
Hey, there's room for The both of you.Maybe I am being ghost writer?
I took your spot?Imitated but never duplicated. :P
Lolonly 12%?
Anyone believe him?The Iranians do. Based on their weak response.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-claims-iranian-general-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy/ar-BBYNggv?ocid=spartanntp
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/politics/trump-iran-suleimani.htmlVery nice wrap up. Thanks.
Anyone believe him?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-claims-iranian-general-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy/ar-BBYNggv?ocid=spartanntp
Trump announces massive response to the airstrike. Putting sanctions on Iran. ROFLMAOWhat would you have preferred he do?
Are these the same sanctions past presidents have used against Iran and NK that he said didn't work? :)
Trump announces massive response to the airstrike. Putting sanctions on Iran. ROFLMAOHey waiter, some of your finest Iranian Kool-Aid please
Are these the same sanctions past presidents have used against Iran and NK that he said didn't work? :)
What would you have preferred he do?Not cancel the Iran deal. Now they will try harder than ever to get the bomb.
Hey waiter, some of your finest Iranian Kool-Aid pleaseHaven't you drank enough already? :P
Not cancel the Iran deal. Now they will try harder than ever to get the bomb.You're joking, right?
Not cancel the Iran deal.So allowing them to make the bomb, but having them wait a few years first, during which they can work on all the technology they need to deliver the bomb, while giving them the cash they need for this and opening up their economy making everything easier, would've been a lot better than at least trying to stop them -- even if it's ultimately unsuccessful.
You're joking, right?
So allowing them to make the bomb, but having them wait a few years first, during which they can work on all the technology they need to deliver the bomb, while giving them the cash they need for this and opening up their economy making everything easier, would've been a lot better than at least trying to stop them -- even if it's ultimately unsuccessful.There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.They were against the deal prior to Trump as well.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.Right, take everything you're constantly saying about Trump's supporters and apply it to Obama and support for the deal makes sense. Although I disagree with you about most of the US being pro the deal, definitely not those who actually know what the deal is.
There is a reason...If there's actually a good reason I'm open to hearing it.
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.Hey, don't associate me with either side of the fence. Iran is a complete joke, and there have already been instances of them breaching their deal. The deal seemed to be a sham. You can't negotiate with terrorists. I don't care which president is involved, the loss of the deal isn't anything to mourn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the sanction put on Iran in the past few years, were a result of them not holding up their end of the agreement.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
They were against the deal prior to Trump as well.Exactly, think about it.
Hey, don't associate me with either side of the fence.I don't.
I don't.Bless you.
Not cancel the Iran deal. Now they will try harder than ever to get the bomb.They were going for the bomb regardless. The deal gave Iran a ton of breathing room to let soleimani build militias and support throughout the middle east and beyond. If Iran got a bomb without having a strong network it would be much more susceptible to say an airstrike or similar campaign. It's actually kind of neat how Iran has so many proxies it can use to carry out mischief to distract the world.
They were going for the bomb regardless. The deal gave Iran a ton of breathing room to let soleimani build militias and support throughout the middle east and beyond. If Iran got a bomb without having a strong network it would be much more susceptible to say an airstrike or similar campaign. It's actually kind of neat how Iran has so many proxies it can use to carry out mischief to distract the world.Like for example Israel would be very careful about a preemptive strike now that Hezbollah has 100,000+ rockets aimed at them and waiting for Iran's word. Same with Saudi Arabia with the Houthi's, same with America now with all the militia activity occurring in Iraq.
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
Same as Chamberlain and Hitler-He knows all this. He's only for JCPOA because Trump pulled out.
Iran was either not going to abide by the treaty or just use the years that the treaty was in effect to do everything to further their goal to get nukes
(See, two can play this game :P )Except your data base is one and mine is hundreds if not thousand of members. ;)
...do everything to further their goal to get nukesWithout the treaty it just makes there job that much easier, no?
Without the treaty it just makes there job that much easier, no?No, the
Without the treaty it just makes there job that much easier, no?
No, thetreatydeal makes it much easier for them but with a small delay.
ETA: It wasn't a treaty.
the continued sanctions and continued exclusion from major world commerce makes it much harder than if they would have had access and grown their economy and were able to do everything to get ready till treaty expired which is pretty soon anywaysNot looking to go round and round even if it is Friday. Would it be fair to say nobody really knows and that is why the US is split on this?
also they were violating the treaty pretty soon afterwards IIRC
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, ... because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.
Not looking to go round and round even if it is Friday. Would it be fair to say nobody really knows and that is why the US is split on this?
Would it be fair to say nobody really knows and that is why the US is split on this?No.
So allowing them to make the bomb, but having them wait a few years first, during which they can work on all the technology they need to deliver the bomb, while giving them the cash they need for this and opening up their economy making everything easier, would've been a lot better than at least trying to stop them -- even if it's ultimately unsuccessful.I know I was being snarky here, but I still believe the underlying point is very valid and you haven't even attempted to offer an opposing argument.
(https://i.gyazo.com/5a27e46dcae6f32e5cba21b301ea1045.png)
No.How about military experts? You think they can be swayed by charm?
Obama having a huge fanbase is not an argument in favor of the deal.
Since in this thread you seem to be focusing on who said/did what, rather than the substance of the matter, how aboutI love when others make my point.
I love when others make my point.When your point is so unclear and all over the map I guess almost anything someone says can be making your point (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)
How about military experts? You think they can be swayed by charm?Yes, of course. (and yes, that does work for both sides.)
When your point is so unclear and all over the map I guess almost anything someone says can be making your point (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)Now you know how I feel. ;)
Yes, of course. (and yes, that does work for both sides.)I tend to believe our military puts our country first not politics.
Anyways, when you have an actual argument why it's better to allow --even help them ($150billion + loosened sanctions) -- get the bomb in 10 years (5 more years from now) is better than at least trying to stop them, wake me up. until then I'm out. :)I don't have a better argument than anyone else. What I do know is this is a divided issue that transcends politics.
I don't have a better argument than anyone else. What I do know is this is a divided issue that transcends politics.Translation: "I can't make an argument why it was a good idea, but my guy did it so it must be good." :P
Yes, of course. (and yes, that does work for both sides.)
I tend to believe our military puts our country first not politics.I do believe those two statements can generally both be true at the same time, but I'm not going down this rabbit hole.
Translation: "I can't make an argument why it was a good idea, but my guy did it so it must be good." :PTranslation: I defer to higher authorities. Something I figured you would agree with.
Translation: I defer to higher authorities. Something I figured you would agree with.Translation: "Obama is God"
Translation: "Obama is God" (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji13.png)Alternative translation: "I'm just a Kool-Aid drinker." (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji13.png)
Translation: "Obama is God"If he is then I never voted for G-d. Sorry if this square peg does not fit in your round hole but you are welcomed to keep hammering away. :)
If he is then I never voted for G-d. Sorry if this square peg does not fit in your round hole but you are welcomed to keep hammering away. :)Alright, I'll give you the last word here, but
when you have an actual argument why it's better to allow --even help them ($150billion + loosened sanctions) -- get the bomb in 10 years (5 more years from now) is better than at least trying to stop them, wake me up. until then I'm out. :)
Gosh this is why I've been avoiding the politics thread like the plague.Right?! This damn thread had a deceptive look, and roped me in as well. Sheesh.
I'm already done with all this after 4 days, I don't know how you guys are keeping at it for 4 years already.
Right?! This damn thread had a deceptive look, and roped me in as well. Sheesh.LOL
LOL>:(
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/10/not-one-senate-democrat-joins-resolution-commending-u-s-military-for-soleimanis-death/Political stunt backfires as he could not even get all the R's onboard.
Political stunt backfires as he could not even get all the R's onboard.did you say the same thing about the D's with impeachment?
Did you say the same thing about the D's with impeachment?
Right?! This damn thread had a deceptive look, and roped me in as well. Sheesh.
I'm out.Ok, this time for real.
Ok, this time for real.You don't want to see the next train wreck? :)
By a large margin the result is we are less safe. Wonder what most here would say, NOT!!! :)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/
How about military experts?
Have not seen them polled, have you?
By a large margin the result is we are less safe. Wonder what most here would say, NOT!!! :)As Ben Shapiro says "Facts don't care about your feelings"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/
As Ben Shapiro says "Facts don't care about your feelings"Mr BS has some facts that show we are safer?
Just because Americans "feel" unsafe, doesn't make them less safe.
I was doing so well not posting here
Mr BS has some facts that show we are safer?No, I was simply using a quote from Mr. Shapiro, not a quote he used on this topic.
No, I was simply using a quote from Mr. Shapiro, not a quote he used on this topic.You used his quote in response to the poll I posted.
HRC all over again!!!Not a great comparison.
Trump: "Doesn't really matter" if there was an imminent threat from Soleimani
You used his quote in response to the poll I posted.Ignore the quote if you want. The rest of my post holds its water without it.
Mr BS is just another mouthpiece like all the other idiots on MSN and FOX.
Have not seen them polled, have you?
I am quoting this two parts;BUMP
"In the days before General Suleimani’s death, Ms. Haspel had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran’s response if he was killed"
"Though Ms. Haspel took no formal position about whether to kill General Suleimani, officials who listened to her analysis came away with the clear view that the C.I.A. believed that killing him would improve — not weaken — security in the Middle East."
The dems and the left played a petrified game how this egoist unstable POTUS is stirring up a peaceful Middle East and putting american lives at risk, well this report proves them wrong.
The NYT is not a proponent of president Trump, but sometimes you have no choice but to report the bitter truth.
Ignore the quote if you want. The rest of my post holds its Kool-Aid without it.FTFY :)
BUMPIs this the same Ms Hasple?
This idiots wants a resolution to support the protester's. He claims we need to let the protesters know the US stands with them. NO YOU IDIOT the US doesn't stand with those that want to kill us.The Iranian people don't want to kill us, the regime does. That's the reason for the support of the iran protestors of the regime that are happening now. Not the protesters the regime staged that burned U.S. flags right after the funeral of Sulimani.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/13/kevin-mccarthy-to-introduce-resolution-in-support-of-iran-protesters/
The Iranian people don't want to kill us, the regime does.They probably love us? ROFLMAO
HRC all over again!!!4
Trump: "Doesn't really matter" if there was an imminent threat from Soleimani
Is this the same Ms Hasple?Whee is this from?
The Trump administration’s nominee to be CIA director, Gina Haspel, personally supervised the torture of a CIA detainee in 2002 leading to at least three waterboard sessions, subsequently drafted the cable that ordered destruction of the videotape evidence of torture, and served as a senior CIA official while the Agency was lying to itself, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Congress, and the public about the effectiveness of torture in eliciting useful intelligence, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
4?
FTFY :)Do me a favor and stop fixing my posts.
The "deduction" by most Americans disagree with your "deduction".
FACT: Your deduction is right inline with most here for whatever that is worth.
if you'd have an actual argumentDon't even bother :)
Don't even bother :)
Ok, this time for real. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji16.png)>:( I'm watching you!
My deduction is not solely mine, it is of most military experts.I see military experts all over the place on this. Where are you getting most military experts thinks this makes us safer?
Don't even bother :)
>:( I'm watching you!Watching is worse than posting. :)
I see military experts all over the place on this. Where are you getting most military experts thinks this makes us safer?
The poll about making us safer is not just along party lines. A 1/3 of R's said it made us less safe. Now you can say the poll is wrong but lets not spin the results.
So the great military minds of the last two presidents were wrong? Were they wrong because they don't agree with you?
I'm not talking about experts on TV. I'm talking about OUR GREAT MILITARY MINDS, the people who run the army, not they people who just sit in an armchair and talk about it.
The results of the poll showed that more people supported the decision to attack then people did not. Why was the headline not "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing was justified"?
Oh right, because then no one would click it.
Who are these people polled anyways? "By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons." Oh yeah? Really? Let's see these polled people answer a simple question: How will it make them more likely? They've been in violation of most agreements and won't do much to make other countries put back sanctions. They've try thier hardest before and they'll continue to try. Not having a lead general who knew all the programs they where brewing makes it HARDER for them (sorry I forgot to put in random words in CAPS in this paragraph).
The American government isn't keen on telling the American people what DIDN'T happen because of back channeling and black ops because it'll cause the WEAK 21st century humans to get NERVOUS. No one knows how many lives where saved by killing this MONSTER (yep, not even me), but GREAT MILITARY MINDS did math we don't know of and knew that killing this MONSTER was a better alternative, so who are these 1003 Americans do decided they are less safe?
1) So the great military minds of the last two presidents were wrong? 2) Were they wrong because they don't agree with you?
3) Most of the country believes pulling out of the Iran deal was wrong. Now put this on top of that. Maybe they think Iran will be more determined than ever to get the bomb.
4) When you get a situation where most are split on it is easy to see who are the Kool-Aid drinkers. You survey them and instead of getting something in the middle it is slanted way to one side. Just poll the members here. :)
5) You are correct the poll shows most supported to take him out. Don't confuse that with them saying it made us safer because that was not even close.
5) if it didn't make us safer why did we do it?Great question. First we should start with why did he lie about the reason. His history has shown he lies, gets caught and then tries and spin it.
Great question. First we should start with why did he lie about the reason. His history has shown he lies, gets caught and then tries and spin it.Could we stop bringing in Trump here? Trump is a habitual lier, but I don't care if a threat was imminent or not. Soleimani was a threat to the US and now he's gone. Case closed.
Could we stop bringing in Trump here? Trump is a habitual lier, but I don't care if a threat was imminent or not. Soleimani was a threat to the US and now he's gone. Case closed.Not that simple. No one is disagreeing he was a threat. You just can't kill anyone that is threat. The reason he was taken out is extremely important.
Not that simple. No one is disagreeing he was a threat. You just can't kill anyone that is threat. The reason he was taken out is extremely important.Why not? Have confidence in the US and in doing what's right. Be a proud, strong and courageous American. Being afraid, and second guessing yourself just gives the evil people strength. ABCs of life.
Why not? Have confidence in the US and in doing what's right. Be a proud, strong and courageous American. Being afraid, and second guessing yourself just gives the evil people strength. ABCs of life.You just told me the leader of our great country is a "habitual liar". How can anyone have confidence he is doing what is right?
You just told me the leader of our great country is a "habitual liar". How can anyone have confidence he is doing what is right?I didn't say to have confidence in Trump. Leave Trump out of the picture. It does not matter who is President. Killing an evil person is the right thing to do.
Is this the same Ms Hasple?
The Trump administration’s nominee to be CIA director, Gina Haspel, personally supervised the torture of a CIA detainee in 2002 leading to at least three waterboard sessions, subsequently drafted the cable that ordered destruction of the videotape evidence of torture, and served as a senior CIA official while the Agency was lying to itself, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Congress, and the public about the effectiveness of torture in eliciting useful intelligence, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
This idiots wants a resolution to support the protester's. He claims we need to let the protesters know the US stands with them. NO YOU IDIOT the US doesn't stand with those that want to kill us.How about the ones that refused to walk on the American and Israeli flags?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/13/kevin-mccarthy-to-introduce-resolution-in-support-of-iran-protesters/
I see military experts all over the place on this. Where are you getting most military experts thinks this makes us safer?
The poll about making us safer is not just along party lines. A 1/3 of R's said it made us less safe. Now you can say the poll is wrong but lets not spin the results.
Isn't that the one that had 6 Dems vote for her, at the confirmation hearing?So you completely avoid the question with a question. I will take that as a yes to my question.
How about the ones that refused to walk on the American and Israeli flags?Then have a resolution for those few. Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.
And while Pelosi, doesn't think that the protests have anything to do with Sulameni, does she agree that it has to do with the sanctions that are killing the Iranian economy?You would have to ask her.
Most Americans never heard about him before the strike...Unless they been living under a rock (or sheltered from the real world) they know who he is. A terrorist that is responsible for killing Americans. So what is flawed is your logic.
I'm not debating now whether the strike was justified, simply pointing out why it's flawed.
I didn't say to have confidence in Trump. Leave Trump out of the picture. It does not matter who is President. Killing an evil person is the right thing to do.You said to trust the US and want to leave the person who is making the decisions for the US out of the picture? You are joking I hope.
They probably love us? ROFLMAOI've got about 15 family members who have lived in Iran their entire lives and ya...they love us, they want to come here or London, they want to wear western fashion, makeup, listen to western music, build a business (mostly auto mechanics, don't ask me why) and would love nothing more than to drag the mullahs into the street and hang them. But they can't. They don't have weapons and the mullahs do. But that is just my assessment from 50 years of conversations with people that live there, so I guess I could be wrong.
Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.
I've got about 15 family members who have lived in Iran their entire lives and ya...they love us, they want to come here or London, they want to wear western fashion, makeup, listen to western music, build a business (mostly auto mechanics, don't ask me why) and would love nothing more than to drag the mullahs into the street and hang them. But they can't. They don't have weapons and the mullahs do. But that is just my assessment from 50 years of conversations with people that live there, so I guess I could be wrong.
Are you really not able to understand that a majority or large minority of people living under a dictatorship may have views vastly different than that of their dictators'?They sound like an excellent candidate for regime change. Almost as good as Iraq. How is that working out? :)
The Palestinians are not the Iranians and it just may be that most Palestinians agree with the anti-Israel rhetoric of the Palestinian leadership and the majority of Iranians do not agree with the anti-US an anti-Israel rhetoric of the Iranian leadership.
There is one thing this strike did do. It unified the hatred all Iranians have for the US.
Do you have evidence for this claim?When I see millions marching in the street screaming death to America that is evidence to me.
They sound like an excellent candidate for regime change. Almost as good as Iraq. How is that working out? :)Iran is a total different story, Iran had a western like civilization just 40 years ago, the entire population was against the Shah but the radicals let the fight, replacing one dictatorship with another. It is known that millions of Iranians were bitterly upset with the outcome. Until today Iran is still a much more civilized country than Iraq and Libya, they have collages, industries etc and the country functions very well. So it's not a comparison to Iraq at all, they are Persians, a total different culture.
There is one thing this strike did do. It unified the hatred all Iranians have for the US.
Don't be so naive to think that hating a dictatorship means they love the US.
Iran is a total different story, Iran had a western like civilization just 40 years ago, the entire population was against the Shah but the radicals let the fight, replacing one dictatorship with another. It is known that millions of Iranians were bitterly upset with the outcome. Until today Iran is still a much more civilized country than Iraq and Libya, they have collages, industries etc and the country functions very well. So it's not a comparison to Iraq at all, they are Persians, a total different culture.I am sure they still have not forgot the US's part with the Shah. I guess our chances are with the younger Iranians.
When I see millions marching in the street screaming death to America that is evidence to me.30 seconds hate?
Now do you have any evidence it didn't?
30 seconds hate?30 year hate?
30 year hate?I guess you are not getting my reference (although it should have been 2 minutes hate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate))
I guess you are not getting my reference (although it should have been 2 minutes hate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate))Thought it was a play on "30 seconds of fame".
So you completely avoid the question with a question. I will take that as a yes to my question.
As far as your question that had nothing to do with mine the answer would be yes. I believe some R's voted against her also.Then have a resolution for those few. Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.You would have to ask her.Unless they been living under a rock (or sheltered from the real world) they know who he is. A terrorist that is responsible for killing Americans. So what is flawed is your logic.
I will say I am confused about how many. It started at 600 and moved to thousands just like he was planning to attack one embassy then became four embassies.
So you completely avoid the question with a question. I will take that as a yes to my question.
As far as your question that had nothing to do with mine the answer would be yes. I believe some R's voted against her also.Then have a resolution for those few. Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.You would have to ask her.Unless they been living under a rock (or sheltered from the real world) they know who he is. A terrorist that is responsible for killing Americans. So what is flawed is your logic.
I will say I am confused about how many. It started at 600 and moved to thousands just like he was planning to attack one embassy then became four embassies.
1. I was pointing out that she couldn't have been that bad if 6 Democrats voted for her.How many D's or R's voted one way or the other does not determine what she did or didn't do. You can argue about EIT's but that doesn't change her participation.
How many D's or R's voted one way or the other does not determine what she did or didn't do. You can argue about EIT's but that doesn't change her participation.This sounds like an opinion piece.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and various components of the U.S. Armed Forces at black sites around the world, including Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, authorized by officials of the George W. Bush administration. Methods used included beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, subjection to deafening noise, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation to the point of hallucination, deprivation of food, drink, and withholding medical care for wounds, as well as waterboarding, walling, sexual humiliation, subjection to extreme heat or extreme cold, and confinement in small coffin-like boxes. A Guantanamo inmate's drawings of some of these tortures, to which he himself was subjected, were published in The New York Times. Some of these techniques fall under the category known as "white torture." Several detainees endured medically unnecessary "rectal rehydration", "rectal fluid resuscitation", and "rectal feeding". In addition to brutalizing detainees, there were threats to their families such as threats to harm children, and threats to sexually abuse or to cut the throat of detainees' mothers.
This sounds like an opinion piece.The opinion would be if you consider it torture. The EIT used are well documented and undisputable. Plenty of documents released with more info being unclassified. Documentaries also made about it. Simple Google search will bring them up for anyone to come to their own conclusion.
The opinion would be if you consider it torture. The EIT used are well documented and undisputable. Plenty of documents released with more info being unclassified. Documentaries also made about it. Simple Google search will bring them up for anyone to come to their own conclusion.That she participated in what was US policy at the time does not really tell us much. That they are banned means nothing. Policies often change with a change of administrations. McCain was a war hero but that doesn't mean that every word he says is the word of G-d.
A couple things about EIT. They are now banned and our great American War Hero John McCain called EIT torture.
That she participated in what was US policy at the time does not really tell us much. That they are banned means nothing. Policies often change with a change of administrations. McCain was a war hero but that doesn't mean that every word he says is the word of G-d.Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't change the fact what I post was accurate. My original question was this the same person. The answer is YES.
Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't change the fact what I post was accurate. My original question was this the same person. The answer is YES.Okay therefore what?
Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't change the fact what I post was accurate. My original accusation was this the same person. The answer is YES.FTFY
Okay therefore what?It was a simple question and not a therefore. If someone is incapable of answering a simple question they won't be able to have an honest discussion.
It was a simple question and not a therefore. If someone is incapable of answering a simple question they won't be able to have an honest discussion.Bringing in irrelevant ad hominem attacks is a great way to show that someone is not having an honest discussion. Not checking into the ad hominem attack shows nothing and definitely not confirming that it was exactly that before checking into it.
@CountValentine You've really been spinning your wheels in this thread...We are talking about issues that the country is divided on and most here see it as one-sided. This happens on so many issues and you accuse me as the one spinning things. Someone is out of touch with reality. ;)
You're just asking questions and never responding to any.If you have a question then ask it. Don't ask a question to avoid one.
Does the majority of Iran hate Israel?
@CountValentine Does the assessment of the CIA director carry any wieght with you?Yes, see how simple that was?
Yes, see how simple that was?So then why are you ignoring what she says and mking ad hominem attacks?
So then why are you ignoring what she says and mking ad hominem attacks?I am not ignoring what she said or making ad hominem attacks no matter how you try and spin it.
I asked this one and you can hear a pin drop.
Does the majority of Iran hate Israel?Bump!
Bump!I don't think any human can factually answer that question, but I'd say it can go either way.
Bump!If I had to guess, I would say probably a majority of those who support the regime hate Israel, a majority of those apposed to the regime, probably not.
I don't think any human can factually answer that question, but I'd say it can go either way.
If I had to guess, I would say probably a majority of those who support the regime hate Israel, a majority of those apposed to the regime, probably not.Are you two the same person? You both disappear and then show up together. :)
Are you two the same person? You both disappear and then show up together. :)United we stand, united we fall
I am not ignoring what she said or making ad hominem attacks no matter how you try and spin it.You only quoted a negative opinion piece about her. Why would someone think you were attacking her?
You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them. You took that as an attack.
I took no position if I agree or disagree with what she did. All I did is point out what she did and you and others ran with your assumptions.
If I had to guess, I would say probably a majority of those who support the regime hate Israel, a majority of those apposed to the regime, probably not.+1.
You only quoted a negative opinion piece about her. Why would someone think you were attacking her?It is only negative if you disagree with what she did.
It is only negative if you disagree with what she did.What you quoted was an opinion piece that also had some alleged facts mixed in.
Do you agree with EIT's as listed in my post?
What you quoted was an opinion piece that also had some alleged facts mixed in.As usual you won't answer my question but then accuse me of not answering yours. Unbelievable, NOT!
I have no idea whether or not she participated nor to the extent if she did. I also do not see the relevance of that to our conversation.
As usual you won't answer my question but then accuse me of not answering yours. Unbelievable, NOT!I told you that I have no idea whether or not she participated.
What I posted was mostly confirmed facts (like waterboarding) but you just want to spin it.
I told you that I have no idea whether or not she participated.I know what you told me but that is not what I asked. I didn't ask if she participated as that is all a matter of record. I asked if you agreed with the EIT's used.
Do you agree with EIT's as listed in my post?
I know what you told me but that is not what I asked. I didn't ask if she participated as that is all a matter of record. I asked if you agreed with the EIT's used.How do I agree with a verb? I am not sure what your question is.
How about Israel. Does the majority of Iran hate Israel? If they got a new leader you would all be OK with them getting the bomb?an israel-hating democracy is infinitely less of a threat than an israel-hating theocratic dictatorship.
So now we've gotten all the way to "It was bad to have killed Suleimani because ...Gina Haspel may have supported waterboarding?"I am going to assume you are all drinking the same Kool-Aid. Where did I say this?
How do I agree with a verb? I am not sure what your question is.Do YOU agree with use of EIT's that the post listed?
I am not ignoring what she said or making ad hominem attacks no matter how you try and spin it.
You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them. You took that as an attack.
I took no position if I agree or disagree with what she did. All I did is point out what she did and you and others ran with your assumptions.
I am going to assume you are all drinking the same Kool-Aid. Where did I say this?how else did it become part of the conversation. People assumed you are saying her opinion that Suleimani had to go , gets negated by the fact that she was involved with EITs.
People assumed you are saying her opinion that Suleimani had to go , gets negated by the fact that she was involved with EITs.Then as usual they assumed wrong again.
Then as usual they assumed wrong again.Do you realize you often make comments/statements that everyone seems to understand one way, yet you somehow have a hidden meaning to make them all look wrong at the end? At some point, the person being misinterpreted is the problem, not the ones who misinterpret.
Do you realize you often make comments/statements that everyone seems to understand one way, yet you somehow have a hidden meaning to make them all look wrong at the end?So now my posts have a hidden meaning? They can ask to clarify as @aygart just did but they would rather just assume.
I think many people (including POTUS) are masquerading as if the assassination was motivated by the necessity to eliminate Suleimani.Then they should just say this instead of all the BS on an imminent threat that went grew from one embassy to four.
He was simply used as a card for retaliation and deterrence.
His death being both highly beneficial to the West and highly offensive to Iran, he was the perfect target, but he wasn't assassinated until the need to retaliate arose and if they couldn't get him they would've attacked a different Iranian target.
Do YOU agree with use of EIT's that the post listed?I think that at least some crossed the line and should not have been used based on what I know.
So now my posts have a hidden meaning? They can ask to clarify as @aygart just did but they would rather just assume.I only asked to clarify after it became clear that the way I understood it was wrong. Quoting hit pieces talking about how someone tortured people is gonna make people think that way.
Example: I post info that Pompeo is a military hawk. It will be twisted or assumed that the info is negative to try and discredit him. No the info was posted as relevant to the way he makes decisions.
I only asked to clarify after it became clear that the way I understood it was wrong. Quoting hit pieces talking about how someone tortured people is gonna make people think that way.So assume first ask later? :)
So assume first ask later? :)Understand as written first then allow you to correct yourself later. :P
So assume first ask later? :)
what reason could you have for posting the piece about EITDid you even read the other post you quoted?
What a waste of a thread. Literally mind bending tricks taking place here. Nothing else.JS
JSDid you mean to hit "B". :)
Did you even read the other post you quoted?so why not post her whole life story instead of just one piece that gives her a bad look
"You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them."
so why not post her whole life story instead of just one piece that gives her a bad lookI tried to find if she supported the Iraq war. It is not my place to educate anyone.
if your trying to educate ppl on this forum then give the whole story and not one little piece
I tried to find if she supported the Iraq war. It is not my place to educate anyone.Why should it matter if she supported the Iraq war or not? That has nothing to do with the fact that she thought soleimani was bad news
I can't believe how this one post has been blown up. Her assessment carries a lot of weight. If she was a dove instead of a hawk that would carry even more weight.
Why should it matter if she supported the Iraq war or not? That has nothing to do with the fact that she thought soleimani was bad newsI have yet to see anyone say this guy wasn't "bad news".
I have yet to see anyone say this guy wasn't "bad news".But it still has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Assessments are very subjective. I would expect a dove and a hawk to have different assessments.
Clarification before this gets twisted. Different does not mean opposite. :)
CV, I hope the people you're taking on a roller coaster ride are enjoying it.More like a merry-go-round.
But it still has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I am done with this one.
I tried to find if she supported the Iraq war. It is not my place to educate anyone.
I can't believe how this one post has been blown up. Her assessment carries a lot of weight. If she was a dove instead of a hawk that would carry even more weight.
Thought it was a play on "30 seconds of fame".
According to YWN, another top Iranian was assassinated today.Reports a senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been assassinated east of Tehran.
This time it was the head of the nuclear program
Now they’re reporting that he’s alive but in serious conditionnow they’re reporting he’s dead but only slightly.
now they’re reporting he’s dead but only slightly.Huh
Now there are reports that Ayatollah khameni has died and his kid is taking over, not sure if that’s good or badsource?
Now there are reports that Ayatollah khameni has died and his kid is taking over, not sure if that’s good or badall I’ve seen is transfer of power to son not that he died
“Thank you Mossad.”
— Alireza Nader علیرضا نادر (@AlirezaNader) December 7, 2020
Israeli flag in Tehranpars (Tehran suburb), #Iran. pic.twitter.com/DWfkZ9KpxC
?s=20Mount Nomore pic.twitter.com/C34ACpP7L5
— Punked Fakert (@PunkedFakert) November 29, 2020