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

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Willtell

Weapons of weapons of mass destruction? You clearly know what you're talking about and aren't just regurgitating whatever snip your betters have attempted to feed you.

LOL!

our betters have attempted to

My betters?

I don't gamble

Or whatever yourr talking about

originally posted by: Willtell
The US started this by bombing a Shia militia. What right does the US have in Iraq TO BOMB A MILITIA. That was before the embassy riot.

Why do people seem to ignore that the attack on the US embassy was a retaliation for the US bombing and killing almost 30 people and wounding over 50? Y'all seem to think that this started with Iranians just randomly attacking the US embassy cause they 'hate our freedom!'. Ugh, the US, and Trump are not clean in this. As per usual.

This didn't start with the embassy attack! How come the USA are the kings of cherrypicking information to push an agenda. And the public buys it hook line and sinker. And even at ATS. Stop the war drums. Deny ignorance.

a reply to: okrian

One wonders why Congress doesn’t have hearings on what the US is doing in Iraq.

I guess maybe we know the reason for all this MSM Trump obsession.


It all goes back to Russia messing up their sinister plot to destroy Syria.


The US is flailing around like a wounded beast.

www.cnbc.com... iranian-general-qasem-soleimani-and-why-his-killing-matters.html

Some security experts believe this killing is the most significant in U.S. history — for Charles Lister, a resident fellow at the Middle East Institute, it “far eclipses the deaths of [Osama] bin Laden or [Abu Bakr al-]Baghdadi in terms of strategic significance and implications ... there really is no underestimating the geopolitical ramifications of this.”

Regional analysts considered Soleimani to be the second-most-powerful leader in Iran, after only Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And the U.S. has pursued him for decades — his operations within Iraq since 2003 killed more than 600 American personnel, the State Department revealed last year.

Where we suppose to just let him come into Iraq and lead more terror attacks us.
Did President Trump made a bad decision when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed?
How about when Obama gave the green light for seal team 6 to take out Osama bin Laden?

Must be TDS, it's fatal.

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: Willtell
The US started this by bombing a Shia militia. What right does the US have in Iraq TO BOMB A MILITIA. That was before the embassy riot.

Why do people seem to ignore that the attack on the US embassy was a retaliation for the US bombing and killing almost 30 people and wounding over 50? Y'all seem to think that this started with Iranians just randomly attacking the US embassy cause they 'hate our freedom!'. Ugh, the US, and Trump are not clean in this. As per usual.

This didn't start with the embassy attack! How come the USA are the kings of cherrypicking information to push an agenda. And the public buys it hook line and sinker. And even at ATS. Stop the war drums. Deny ignorance.

The only problem with that oped is the source, RT. I'm not saying anything said isn't true but people here have a tendency to shy away from anything Russian.

a reply to: Kapusta

If the mainstream media says it was a bad decision it has to be a great decision.

They have lost all credibility.

a reply to: okrian

I have learned that when you don't know what the leaders who make decisions know, you tend to make idiotic statements that come back to bite you in the ass. So in this case, I'll hope that the information our leaders have is good and they made a good decision. I am firmly against war in any form, and hope that what the US did with this will stop a war from happening.

But feel free to disparage those who have the information. The internet is forever.

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 .

If the attack was from local Iraqis then how was Soleimani killed in Baghdad?
If I’m ever killed in a brothel I hope my friends will tell the world I was simply trying to spread the Lords word.

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Which word? Be fruitful and multiply?

a reply to: Kapusta

While I can't exactly defend everything done in the past between the USA and Iran...SHTF, didn't happen in Iran...happened in Iraq where he was helping to direct and coordinate a proxy war against western world. So not exactly an act against Iran itself but rather an equal and opposite reaction to their openly (covert) hostility. Iran has definitely been very active for the last 200 years in all manner of proxy warfare and direct acts of war against the modern world through hostage taking, etc. Please educate yourself further on the historical events between our countries before positing such an uninformed and ill-spoken opinion. Although, this isn't a black and white situation I admit. Reality rarely is cast in black and white. And, America isn't necessarily without some blemishes on this either.

Modern civilization (by this I mean civilization which has progressed beyond 13th century barbarism including common societal tenants such as slavery, rape, hostage taking, extortion, mass genocide, etc.) may occasionally have common interests with Iranian leadership ie: the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, there are specific and sad reasons why modern society can never ally themselves in any permanent and meaningful fashion with the Iranian leadership (Note: not necessarily the actual Iranian peoples themselves nor, ahem...their civilization's monuments, popular tourist traps etc...unless, there is a specific tactical reason for shielding other nefarious purposes-which is a common theme in clandestine warfare...BTY, USA doesn't use human shielding - don't have to, don't want to and won't).

Nevertheless, I believe the following reasoning to be the informational cure for the premise of your opinion(s):

Iranian (and also Daesh a.k.a. ISIL/ISIS...but on different sides of the same coin) leadership believe that we are living in the End of Days as predicted in their ancient prophecies. Both believe that any moment now their messiah, the Mahdi, will be revealed on Earth as he establishes his global Islamic kingdom and imposes 13th century sharia law. Both believe that Jesus will return not as the Savior or Son of God but as a lieutenant to the Mahdi, and that he will force non-Muslims to convert or die. Sounds great,huh? Both believe that the Mahdi will come only when the world is engulfed in chaos and carnage. Hence, they wish to create such an environment conducive to the end goal. My, what an amicable goal. They openly vow not simply to attack but to annihilate the United States and Israel - so do you begin to see the reason why?..I hope so. To do otherwise will be ill advised...unless, you are in fact an apocalyptic Muslim extremist. Which I doubt, since you volunteered yourself that you cast a ballot for DT and would again. I imagine them mostly to desire to grow silently (with USA funding, similar to Obama Funding)...

You see, Iran and ISIS are both eager to hasten the coming of their version of Mahdi. Both believe that the Day of Judgment is coming soon, when they will be rewarded for their actions and everybody else gets condemned to hell for eternity. And both are receiving relatively minimal international opposition until just recently. Consequently, both believe that Allah is on their side, that the wind is at their back, and that victory is both assured and imminent. Perhaps, you would relish a return to the barbaric apex of 13th century civilization but I would prefer to continue to evolve and grow as an enlightened and tolerant species into a new horizon of human achievement...each to his own I guess. Personally, I think it is all a bunch of BS and would prefer Gene Roddenberry to return to life so we could have a little dose of some decent Star Trek once again. But, that's just me, ya know?..always dreaming about a better tomorrow where we love one another and live in peace despite our differing opinions we learn to respect and protect one another as a community living long and prospering much. But, killing everybody who doesn't like that almost sounds reasonable I guess...(lol, evilly like an insane madman from Iran)...

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." - Genesis 3:24 (don't think that is the answer but when dealing with people who honestly believe in the death of everybody...Well, please just kill yourselves without any harm to the rest of us. I'd prefer you didn't make us kill you to simply protect ourselves from your hatred and anger...just drink the blue kool-aid the magical Unicorn Flying Object UFO is coming, maybe.).Religious extremism is dangerous and unprovable..

So, I guess we sent a message to Get The #F*OUT=HEREDude...because whatever the F, WE ARE HERE...and Iranian covert action is not very welcome at the moment. Thanks ALOT, please just GTFO...AND WE MEAN IT!!!...AND, if Iraq wants to buddy up Iran...then welcome to a second ass-stomping. U Just Try a Benghazi, please...What a failure that would be? Open up another can of that, please do if you are that mind-wiped and forgetful...and deserve what will happen.

Not your fault not knowing, many in the West first became aware of the apocalyptic beliefs inside Iran through the speeches of then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has long held similar beliefs and openly expresses them:

"the “battle” to establish the Mahdi’s kingdom “will only end when the [Islamic] society can get rid of the oppressors’ front, with America at the head of it.” - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement.” - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In the near term, ISIS is more dangerous because it is on a jihadist rampage now — robbing, killing, destroying, enslaving, raping, torturing, and beheading Christians, Muslims and others just for fun...common 13th century entertainments hoping to come to a theater near you soon. Nevertheless, In the longer term, Iran’s leaders are more dangerous. Owing to the numerous loopholes in the recent nuclear deal, they would have been able to bide their time and, at a time of their choosing, build a nuclear arsenal capable of killing millions of people in a matter of minutes. Given their supposedly incredibly righteous beliefs,they must and they will...make no mistake about that. Thank God we re-evaluated that pile of BS...Unless, your God loves well, like chopping fingers off, raping, mass genocide kind of God...might wanna get on the right side of the pile. So, kinda general...FKU if you don't get it.

Iranian leadership seek not simply to attack us but to annihilate us in order to hasten the coming of their messiah. Do you now comprehend and understand the nature of this threat?

Hey, maybe you are right and there isn't any reason for reasonable aggression against 13th century civilization ideals and the USA is just a bunch of bullies that should have a bunch of innocents killed to bring about the apocalypse and the glory of the Mahdi and the incredible righteousness of a bunch of camel jockeys.

You should time-travel back to Afghanistan Taliban rule...sounds like just your kind of thing. But, DT BAAAADDDDD?

a reply to: sillyrabbit

Hi. I am firm on my position. Thanks for the thoughtful Opinion.

I am very anti-war, but I don’t have enough information to make a good decision about this attack. If I were President and had access to the intelligence information and advisors I might be more qualified to speak to the decision. I don’t think anyone here has enough information to make an informed decision regarding these attacks either.

From this article, it seems as the assassination of the general was just a fringe option to make the other options seem more reasonable. And Trump selected it after getting PO'd at the actions at the embassy. And the Pentagon officials were shocked he selected that option. I can 100% believe this. It's the same thing when he saw images of children after a supposed gassing, and chose to launch missiles.

A POTUS that acts on emotion instead of rational thought is a dangerous person. Did he actually consider the ramifications? I seriously doubt it. He lacks foreign experience, and I don't think he has a real clue what the results of that decision might be. While many of his followers believe he is some sort of strategic genius at foreign policy, there is no basis in fact to think why he would be. Personally I think he just reacts, and makes crap up as he goes.

Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani

a reply to: fleabit

A Slate article that relies on unnamed sources = less reliable than Trumps hair spray.

originally posted by: Willtell
You hear this from the same element that told you Sadam had weapons of WMD
You guys are just justifying the mess America has made of the ME.
You must be neocons

So you are saying this guy was some innocent person we decided to kill? You can have that belief, I really don't care, but my statement as to why he was there and why her was taken out is not hard to see.

BTW I was in Iraq a number of times and there were a good number of empty bunkers that were contaminated with WMDs that had to be sealed off, so who knows when they were moved. It was a common conjecture there that they were quickly sent to Syria before we moved in as Saddam missed calculated in thinking if we could not find any then we would not have a reason to remove him.

originally posted by: fleabit

I am very anti-war, but I don’t have enough information to make a good decision about this attack. If I were President and had access to the intelligence information and advisors I might be more qualified to speak to the decision. I don’t think anyone here has enough information to make an informed decision regarding these attacks either.

From this article, it seems as the assassination of the general was just a fringe option to make the other options seem more reasonable. And Trump selected it after getting PO'd at the actions at the embassy. And the Pentagon officials were shocked he selected that option. I can 100% believe this. It's the same thing when he saw images of children after a supposed gassing, and chose to launch missiles.

A POTUS that acts on emotion instead of rational thought is a dangerous person. Did he actually consider the ramifications? I seriously doubt it. He lacks foreign experience, and I don't think he has a real clue what the results of that decision might be. While many of his followers believe he is some sort of strategic genius at foreign policy, there is no basis in fact to think why he would be. Personally I think he just reacts, and makes crap up as he goes.

Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani

That article is fake news. When the president is given military options they also include whats called a threat assessment. Generals never just throw something in to make other options look better. Each strike is planned and contingency made.

Who ever wrote this article is clueless on military assessments. Each had their own file with risks clearly spelled out in each.

Donalds most recent tweet suggests that Congress is irrelevant when it comes to his declaration of war,would the Sergeant at Arms please arrest Caligula

a reply to: Kapusta

On the other hand, he is personally responsible for hundreds of our dead. Live by the sword and all.. Obama and Bush decided not to. This guy finally ran into one that said enough is enough I guess.

originally posted by: khnum
Donalds most recent tweet suggests that Congress is irrelevant when it comes to his declaration of war,would the Sergeant at Arms please arrest Caligula

Did you say that about the Drone master Obama or are you still just screaming at the sky?

originally posted by: BastogneFoxHole
a reply to: Kapusta

On the other hand, he is personally responsible for hundreds of our dead.

Right, wrong, or indifferent..I imagine he felt exactly the same!

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: BastogneFoxHole
a reply to: Kapusta

On the other hand, he is personally responsible for hundreds of our dead.

Right, wrong, or indifferent..I imagine he felt exactly the same!

He feels nothing hes dead.This man got his position by killing Americans it got him promoted to the number 2 position in Iran.

Ironic the same thing that created his career ended it.