Am A Trump Supporter But I Can't Get Behind This Attack.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta

I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.

Do we know why the general was in town, shortly after an embassy attack?

Hmm...

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Kapusta

If you agree with every decision a president makes then you are nothing more than a sheep.
Not everything is black and white so relax.

I'm as cool as a cucumber?

I'm here to enguage in dialogue about the current state of affairs with Iran .

Iran is a country where women are no better than cattle and gays are murdered for just existing.

I really don't care if their leadership survives the next decade.

Strange way of spelling Saudi Arabia

So Iranian women weren't protesting having to wear a Hijab not long ago?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Do we know why the general was in town, shortly after an embassy attack?

Hmm...

I'm guessing a trip to Costco, or a goat seminar, or a B&B trip with his male lover Kevin that he booked on Grinder.

Yea, he had to catch a connecting flight I think.
Either that or he had some vacation time available and was going to do some sight seeing.

LOL, unbelievable how the media has spun this, can't wait to read his obituary from the NY Times.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta

I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.

Do we know why the general was in town, shortly after an embassy attack?

Hmm...

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta

I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.

From my understanding the attack on the embassy was from local Iraqis who were upset. Of course the MSM is pushing that it's an Iran Backed attack . You see how that works?

Your disagreement is noted .

Then maybe you can tell me why an Iranian general is in Iraq around the time of an embassy attack.

a reply to: Kapusta

Am A Trump Supporter But I Can't Get Behind This Attack.

Uh oh. You’ve done it now. Don’t make the ATS Trump hive mind angry.

There’s no room here for anyone who questions what Donald Trump tells them.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kapusta

The US didn't attack Iran, we killed an Iranian terrorist in Iraq.

Sorry people seem to be so upset over the death of a filthy cowardly terrorist that is responsible for hundreds of American soldiers deaths.

Light a ####ing candle for him or something.

SMGDH

We Probably should have sent them another big pallet of cash..

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Do we know why the general was in town, shortly after an embassy attack?

Hmm...

I'm guessing a trip to Costco, or a goat seminar, or a B&B trip with his male lover Kevin that he booked on Grinder.

Its always Kevin.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Kapusta

Am A Trump Supporter But I Can't Get Behind This Attack.

Uh oh. You’ve done it now. Don’t make the ATS Trump hive mind angry.

There’s no room here for anyone who questions what Donald Trump tells them.

I don't see any anger.

And you're here.

So maybe you're full of it?

a reply to: Kapusta

Hopefully saudi Arabia and israel aren't going yo try and push the u.s. into war with iran.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Kapusta

Hopefully saudi Arabia and israel aren't going yo try and push the u.s. into war with iran.

Oh but they will . Per usual......

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta

I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.

From my understanding the attack on the embassy was from local Iraqis who were upset. Of course the MSM is pushing that it's an Iran Backed attack . You see how that works?

Your disagreement is noted .

Then maybe you can tell me why an Iranian general is in Iraq around the time of an embassy attack.

Couldn't tell you exactly why . Iran has had a presence in Iraq for some time . But from a Strategic stance what would be the benefit of "Attacking a US embassy" when you don't have a strong military presence in the region? Doesn't make senses to me .

a reply to: Kapusta

I do not know . Iran has a history of supporting countries with Shia occupants who are enguaged in war.

And if you studied Iran as much as you claim or even any at all then you would know that Iran also has a huge history of state-sponsored terrorism.

Um... S&F for a Trump supporter from an alleged TDS sufferer

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta

I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.

From my understanding the attack on the embassy was from local Iraqis who were upset. Of course the MSM is pushing that it's an Iran Backed attack . You see how that works?

Your disagreement is noted .

Do you suppose the Iran general Qassem Suleimani was there on a secret peace mission? Why would the dumbass enter Iraq with his special attack forces without announcing it to U.S. officials or Iraqi officials?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Kapusta

I do not know . Iran has a history of supporting countries with Shia occupants who are enguaged in war.

And if you studied Iran as much as you claim or even any at all then you would know that Iran also has a huge history of state-sponsored terrorism.

And pushing America's buttons every chance they get. Since the original hostage taking during Carter's presidency there have been a lot of Iran-backed attacks on Americans. Taking out this slug of a general should have happened a long time ago, before he killed (or was responsible for) a bunch of Americans.

And a sincere question to Kapusta - you say you're a "former Muslim", doesn't that mean you have a target on your back by other Muslims since you claim to no longer be of that faith? That seems to be the standard MO of theirs when someone leaves that faith.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Kapusta

I do not know . Iran has a history of supporting countries with Shia occupants who are enguaged in war.

And if you studied Iran as much as you claim or even any at all then you would know that Iran also has a huge history of state-sponsored terrorism.

Many countries have a history of "state sponsored " terrorism.

I don't trust Pompeo either. But I think Trump is outsmarting him and other Warhawks. To pull back from regime-change nation-building requires some finesse and can't be done in one move.

Remember how, when under great pressure to get deeper into Syria, Trump dropped that MOAB and destroyed an airfield but not much else and then started pulling back?

The Warhawks couldn't bitch much because he fielded such an awesome weapon and were therefore off balance when he started pulling back.

Much the same strategy with Iran too I think. Give trump a little breathing room and watch him work. Soleiman was a valid target and we're talking precision strikes. Iran knows Trump is always willing to negotiate. Now terrorists also know there's consequences should they choose not to negotiate. I'm betting Kim is rethinking some stuff too and Trump has been diplomatic enough to give Kim a way to save face.

Notice how the MSM has suddenly become anti-War again? Trump will use that to his advantage.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta

I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.

From my understanding the attack on the embassy was from local Iraqis who were upset. Of course the MSM is pushing that it's an Iran Backed attack . You see how that works?

Your disagreement is noted .

Do you suppose the Iran general Qassem Suleimani was there on a secret peace mission? Why would the dumbass enter Iraq with his special attack forces without announcing it to U.S. officials or Iraqi officials?

I don't know why he was there and I'm not certain the MSM know exactly why . It's all speculation at this point until some hard facts come out.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Kapusta

Good to see you again

I don't like it either. Not one bit.

However, I am not surprised that Trump to chose to handle it this way. Trump has made it clear that he's putting America first by any and all means necessary and effective. And this is one of the reasons many of his supporters are his supporters.

I understand why. I just don't think killing folks -- even if they are willing to kill us -- is necessarily the appropriate solution.

What is your solution with Iran?