Iran's Top Terrorist Taken Out By The U.S.

[as2]

Are you two the same person? You both disappear and then show up together. 

United we stand, united we fall

[aygart]

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.

You only quoted a negative opinion piece about her. Why would someone think you were attacking her?

[yelped]

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.

Increasingly, people in the Middle East are starting to realize that they are being fed Anti-Israel hate to distract from the failures of their governments.

[CountValentine]

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.
Do you agree with EIT's as listed in my post?

[aygart]

It is only negative if you disagree with what she did.
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.
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.

[CountValentine]

What you quoted was an opinion piece that also had some alleged facts mixed in.
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!
What I posted was mostly confirmed facts (like waterboarding) but you just want to spin it.

[aygart]

As usual you won't answer my question but then accuse me of not answering yours. Unbelievable, NOT!
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.

[CountValentine]

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?

 

[whYME]

So now we've gotten all the way to "It was bad to have killed Suleimani because ...Gina Haspel may have supported waterboarding?"

[aygart]

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.

[gozalim]

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.

for one- their choice to pursue the bomb will be considerably more susceptible to international pressure and sanctions

[CountValentine]

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?

[CountValentine]

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?

[mercaz1]

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.

most asinine comment ever

just post a link to her wikipedia page

[gingyguy]

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.

[CountValentine]

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.

[as2]

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.

[PlatinumGuy]

I think many people (including POTUS) are masquerading as if the assassination was motivated by the necessity to eliminate Suleimani.

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.

[CountValentine]

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.

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.

[CountValentine]

I think many people (including POTUS) are masquerading as if the assassination was motivated by the necessity to eliminate Suleimani.

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.

Then they should just say this instead of all the BS on an imminent threat that went grew from one embassy to four.