It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Do we know why the general was in town, shortly after an embassy attack?
Hmm...
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 .
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
Its always Kevin.
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.
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.
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.
I do not know . Iran has a history of supporting countries with Shia occupants who are enguaged in war.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
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.