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.

 

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

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
Um... S&F for a Trump supporter from an alleged TDS sufferer



Geraldo needs to quietly retire to the Caribbean, never to be heard or seen again.




posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

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.



Potentially. I did work with the F.B.I at one point . I'm a nobody though. It really just depends on the situation



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

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.


Now try and answer that last question.Why would Qassem Suleimani enter Iraq without announcing it to U.S. or Iraqi officials?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: HalWesten

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.



Potentially. I did work with the F.B.I at one point . I'm a nobody though. It really just depends on the situation


I suppose, I hope you don't but it seems like we've seen a lot of "honor" killings here and other countries where ordinary people have tried to get out of the faith. Seems more like a cult to me but then so does radical Christianity.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
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.


My man ! Good to see you Gut!

Always a pleasure reading your thoughts on topics .
If what you say is accurate I can most definitely get behind that. Perhaps I'm just leaning on the side of caution with this one . I sure hope for the sake of lives it was a calculated attack .



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Im my humble opinion...the ME mess is a creation of the war machine to manufacture an enemy, so that we can sell incredibly expensive defense systems. The Wests disbolical policies spurred a 10 year proxy war between Iran and Iraq where thousands died.....they aint forgot that.

The propaganda machine, much like Pope Urbans original ploy to create hatred for Muslims in order to rally Christians to pay for Romes extravagant spending, is afoot in a serious way.

It will never end cuz humans are idiots.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

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.


Now try and answer that last question.Why would Qassem Suleimani enter Iraq without announcing it to U.S. or Iraqi officials?



I can't answer that question I'm not Suleimani am I? Your Question is pure speculation.
.
Read This

Maybe their will be an answer for you....



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: HalWesten

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.



Potentially. I did work with the F.B.I at one point . I'm a nobody though. It really just depends on the situation


I suppose, I hope you don't but it seems like we've seen a lot of "honor" killings here and other countries where ordinary people have tried to get out of the faith. Seems more like a cult to me but then so does radical Christianity.


It is absolutely a cult. The religion works for the time period it was created in . It has many great tools to help you gain a connection to "god" but it also allows for it to be malnipulated and used as a tool for evil.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:49 PM
link   

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.







Your disagreement is noted .


Why did they paint the now deceased general's names at the US embassy? Dont you think the president would act on more than news speculation?


edit on 4-1-2020 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:55 PM
link   


ETA: Here is a link Written by a former US Marine intelligence officer ( on RT) that really puts it all into perspective.


Don't really give a rats rear end what RT says.

Really using Russian sources after the last three years to justify an opinion on 'Murican foreign policy decisions ?



Hellfire drones are a hell of alot cheaper than billions of dollars on pallets of cash. To buy 'friendship'.

Iran HATES us.

Every single of those right wing neocon theocracies in the middle east hate the ever living hell out of Us and the west.

When are people gonna wake up to that fact?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6

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.







Your disagreement is noted .


Why did they paint the now deceased general's names at the US embassy? Dont you think the president would act on more than news speculation?



I'm not aware of that . I don't Trust any MSM outlet. Can you provide a link to back your statement please .



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



ETA: Here is a link Written by a former US Marine intelligence officer ( on RT) that really puts it all into perspective.


Don't really give a rats rear end what RT says.

Really using Russian sources after the last three years to justify an opinion on 'Murican foreign policy decisions ?



Hellfire drones are a hell of alot cheaper than billions of dollars on pallets of cash. To buy 'friendship'.

Iran HATES us.

Every single of those right wing neocon theocracies in the middle east hate the ever living hell out of Us and the west.

When are people gonna wake up to that fact?






Here is a Fact that was written by a former US Marine intelligence officer. Furthermore at the bottom of the article RT posts a disclaimer stating the opinions of the story don't reflect RTs position.

When are people going to wake up and read ?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

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.


Now try and answer that last question.Why would Qassem Suleimani enter Iraq without announcing it to U.S. or Iraqi officials?



I can't answer that question I'm not Suleimani am I? Your Question is pure speculation.
.
Read This

Maybe their will be an answer for you....


No, my question is not speculative. You see, there is only one answer to that question. The answer is: Suleimani did not tell the U.S. or Iraqi officials he was entering the country because Suleimani did not want the U.S. officials nor the Iraqi officials to know he was there.

How stupid can you be to announce that you are the enemy of the U.S. and then sneak into a hotbed warzone of said enemy with a special forces army, unannounced and as a third party? Suleimani got what he deserved.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta

I read it. Now what's your point about it?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

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.


Now try and answer that last question.Why would Qassem Suleimani enter Iraq without announcing it to U.S. or Iraqi officials?



I can't answer that question I'm not Suleimani am I? Your Question is pure speculation.
.
Read This

Maybe their will be an answer for you....


No, my question is not speculative. You see, there is only one answer to that question. The answer is: Suleimani did not tell the U.S. or Iraqi officials he was entering the country because Suleimani did not want the U.S. officials nor the Iraqi officials to know he was there.

How stupid can you be to announce that you are the enemy of the U.S. and then sneak into a hotbed warzone of said enemy with a special forces army, unannounced and as a third party? Suleimani got what he deserved.




Where are you getting this information can you provide a source please .



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Kapusta

I read it. Now what's your point about it?



Now you probably understand why he didn't "announce " his presence. If that was the case at all ...



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

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.


Now try and answer that last question.Why would Qassem Suleimani enter Iraq without announcing it to U.S. or Iraqi officials?



I can't answer that question I'm not Suleimani am I? Your Question is pure speculation.
.
Read This

Maybe their will be an answer for you....


No, my question is not speculative. You see, there is only one answer to that question. The answer is: Suleimani did not tell the U.S. or Iraqi officials he was entering the country because Suleimani did not want the U.S. officials nor the Iraqi officials to know he was there.

How stupid can you be to announce that you are the enemy of the U.S. and then sneak into a hotbed warzone of said enemy with a special forces army, unannounced and as a third party? Suleimani got what he deserved.




Where are you getting this information can you provide a source please .


Are you refuting anything I have said?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The Iran Protest movement is on day 51 of its campaign to bring reform to their government. Solemeni has personally been at the helm of suppressing this protest movement, on his orders it is reported between 500 and 1,000 Iranians have been shot dead. I dunno but he doesn't sound like the sort of man you can talk to with a death toll like that, so the only other way to deal with the leader is through the way Trump acted. Truth be told the Iranians were getting a little unnerved in their actions over the past few years, this assassination serves a point to all the others in power that their actions whether killing their own people or killing foreigners will be met with the ultimate punishment.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Kapusta

I read it. Now what's your point about it?



Now you probably understand why he didn't "announce " his presence. If that was the case at all ...


The point is, if he felt he had business there that he needed to enter Iraq then he should have announced himself. I guess that was only obvious to pretty much 100% of people with only the slightest bit of common sense. But alas it seems he learned the hard way.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Kapusta

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.


Now try and answer that last question.Why would Qassem Suleimani enter Iraq without announcing it to U.S. or Iraqi officials?



I can't answer that question I'm not Suleimani am I? Your Question is pure speculation.
.
Read This

Maybe their will be an answer for you....


No, my question is not speculative. You see, there is only one answer to that question. The answer is: Suleimani did not tell the U.S. or Iraqi officials he was entering the country because Suleimani did not want the U.S. officials nor the Iraqi officials to know he was there.

How stupid can you be to announce that you are the enemy of the U.S. and then sneak into a hotbed warzone of said enemy with a special forces army, unannounced and as a third party? Suleimani got what he deserved.




Where are you getting this information can you provide a source please .


Are you refuting anything I have said?



I can't give my full opinion until I have an opportunity to read the information you are speaking about. You asked me a question that I believe to be speculation . You say it isn't. Let me read from the source where your question originated from .




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join