Deepstate, CIA, hypocrisy?

originally posted by: JHumm
a reply to: DBCowboy

Agreed, some people must think that our people over there should be on their own and end up like Christopher Stevens and the other three that were in Benghazi and were left stranded.

It's really pathetic that so many would actually wish and hope for another Benghazi where we had deaths of embassy staff just so the leftists could gloat.

a reply to: XCrycek
Depends on who's intelligence is being shared and which agency is doing the shooting. Military targets are usually identified by the Defense intelligence agency. Unlike the CIA, which dispenses deciet like a soft serve machine typically for political means, the dia is focused on accomplishing a specific goal and mitigating the danger to the soldiers carrying out such a missing.

The general was struck by an air Force drone I believe, not a CIA limited one. The military has been sharing this intelligence withy Senate armed services and foreign relations committees for years. The CIA decides if the media needed to share it with the public, to bend the truth a bit, or never mention it publicly.


The DIA is less concerned with politics as their ops are usually mission specific. How did I do??

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: JHumm
a reply to: DBCowboy

Agreed, some people must think that our people over there should be on their own and end up like Christopher Stevens and the other three that were in Benghazi and were left stranded.

It's really pathetic that so many would actually wish and hope for another Benghazi where we had deaths of embassy staff just so the leftists could gloat.

Is that what people questioning are wishing for? People who question actions wish for people to die? How hyperbolic does that sound.

People have every right and historical reason to question foreign policy decisions.

Leftists historically have just as much military projection.

Both sides itch to throw money at pointless wars.

Who's better off post WWII with our intervention?

If we're a net energy producer over consumer, why do I need to feel warm and fuzzy for national interests that smell of petrol?

If Trump campaigned on equalling western spending on foreign interests, and holding NATO members accountable, why should I feel super special for global interests above my nation's own?

This all stinks. To me, and that's my opinion. I would have thought those who rail against socialism would be opposed to sourcing our power for global interests.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Oh lord don't get preachy, you know it's true.

The leftists wanted death just to nail Trumps hide to a wall.

They were actually disappointed when no one died.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not preachy, it's my opinion.

Of course the lefties will exploit anything to criticize Trump. They hoisted up Hillary, who is dispise by most of America and are unwilling to take accountability for their loss.

She would have been far worse with foreign policy given her infatuation with Kissinger.

That doesn't mean people can't question what's going on. It's not always right vs left, sometimes people can just say a line of reason deserves inquiry.

This is one of those times for me.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Kinda like calling the murderer and dictator for life Kim Un Jung your friend, right?

Maybe shaking hands with him?

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: DBCowboy

Kinda like calling the murderer and dictator for life Kim Un Jung your friend, right?

Maybe shaking hands with him?

So, you're saying that Trump should drone him too?

The russian dossier wasn't uncovered by U.S. intelligence, It was largely invented by Daniel Steele a british agent paid for by Hillary Clinton. Which is another quid pro quo the left choices to ignore.

My rule is I'm military aged, so I only vote and vocally support a war I'd fight myself. This ain't it, so I won't support people going to fight it for me.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Good on you for realizing this

So you are defending the Iranian terrorist, right?

Probably because Trump ordered his death.

Again, I am disgusted.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's what XCrycek said...

You trash your own Intel agencies on a daily basis but swallow everything they say about Iran.

And you conflate that with support for Iranian terrorism? You have some kind of separation with reality there bud. Time for a snack, here....have a SNICKERS. You sound hangry.

Does it matter when we blew the guy up on his way to the airport after participating in a terrorist act against our embassy?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Whoa...thats breaking news!! Got a link for that?

While he was in a country he was not authorized to be in?

Are you sure about that? Last I heard, the Iranians were invited in country to help fight ISIL. In fact, the Iranian backed militia were calling in U.S. airstrikes for while there.

You ignore the facts your choice of media ignores.

If you watch FOX Entertainment, this 100% pertains to you.

Its not like the whole CIA agreed with him. It was mostly just Brennan saying that Russia helped Trump. A fact which still remains true today.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"Mostly just Brennan" sounds like mostly just gay.

Can you be more specific? I am interested to know if it was just Brennan, or if the broader intelligence community was behind this assessment.

Maybe we can both learn something.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The OP didn't defend anyone.

Anyone questioning the wisdom or morality of killing this man isn't defending him. It's defending one's own conscience and actions. Because the vast majority of us respect life and do not want to take life.

That DOES NOT MEAN that we will not protect and defend. It does mean that we will not be the aggressors.

To the best of my knowledge, no one was killed at the Embassy -- and I thank Heaven for that small wonder. And killing this man was not the reason for that. Killing him will only stop HIM -- no one else. Our troubles with Iran will continue. This death ended nothing.

So be loud and proud about being how happy YOU are. Speak for yourself. But don't presume to speak for others -- much less insult them because killing people isn't OUR oh-so-proudest moment.

a reply to: Boadicea

The terrorist was responsible for hundreds of deaths over many years.

For anyone to pause and think that this might not be a good idea? Hell yeah I'll question their judgement and where their loyalties are.

The US responded to attacks. The US was not the aggressor here.

And to anyone who is now concerned that killing this slime terrorist will lead to further attacks? That sounds too much like appeasement and a sacrifice of American lives so we don't "upset" the cowardly terrorists!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

The terrorist was responsible for hundreds of deaths over many years.

And? So? The United States has been responsible for hundreds of deaths over many years as well. Seems to me I remember our own president stating that he's really good at killing people. Pot meet kettle??? With your logic, we all deserve what he got.

For anyone to pause and think that this might not be a good idea? Hell yeah I'll question their judgement and where their loyalties are.

Go right ahead. But you're only fooling yourself if you think YOUR words say anything about anyone else. YOUR WORDS say EVERYTHING about YOU... and we get it. You are loudly and proudly proclaiming the omniscience and omnipotence to know and decide who deserves to live and die.

And I know damn well that if you are so arrogant to presume the power of life and death over one person, you will presume that same power over every person, including me. I am not a threat to you, but with that tyrannical mindset you sure as hell are a threat to me and everyone else.

The US responded to attacks. The US was not the aggressor here.

Yes or no: Was this general an immediate threat to any U.S. persons?
Yes or no: Was this "response" the ONLY possible response?

And to anyone who is now concerned that killing this slime terrorist will lead to further attacks? That sounds too much like appeasement and a sacrifice of American lives so we don't "upset" the cowardly terrorists!

That's what it sounds like to YOU. Screw appeasement. I am not going to condone or cheer killing for its own sake. Because I'm better than that, and the USA that I know and love is better than that. My own conscience and values preclude me from resorting to that level. An eye for an eye just makes everyone blind.

On a purely practical level, we both know that killing this general is just another volley. It's not going to make or break our relations with Iran. It seems to me that Trump felt taking such decisive action would be a deterrent to Iran AND others who would commit violent acts against our people and interests, therefore Trump believed that by taking a few lives he would be protecting many many more lives. I can give Trump credit for that much, even if I don't agree or like it.

But you have only expressed blood lust and vengeance. No higher purpose or principle. Just cold blooded revenge. And that's no better than the terrorists.

a reply to: Boadicea

I celebrate the death of a monster, one responsible for countless deaths and injuries against American soldiers.

I'm not going to apologize or back away from that.

I'd honor him with a full bladder and piss on his grave if ever given the opportunity.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Okay. Thanks for putting an exclamation point on your position. And thanks for speaking for yourself, as opposed to branding others -- including me -- as cowards and appeasers for daring to take a more principled and difficult position in order to prop up your position. Much appreciated.

Likewise, I will maintain the courage of my own convictions, and absolutely and adamantly refuse to celebrate and laud the brutal killing of another person. It happens. And it happened. But it isn't ideal nor noble. At best, it is a necessary evil.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: DBCowboy

Kinda like calling the murderer and dictator for life Kim Un Jung your friend, right?

Maybe shaking hands with him?

It's called diplomacy, Trump actually wants to work with the North Koreans.

The iranians take deals and still chant Death to America.

You mad we killed that Iranian general?

a reply to: DBCowboy

And to anyone who is now concerned that killing this slime terrorist will lead to further attacks? That sounds too much like appeasement and a sacrifice of American lives so we don't "upset" the cowardly terrorists!

That's the same tired talking points we hear before any political war.

Its doublespeak orchestrated by the elites who want the war. "support this, or you're not a patriot, and you're a coward".

I get to question politicians on this, because if they were consistent, we wouldn't be aligned with Saudi Arabia, the nation who had thr most blood on their hands after 9/11.

And what's funny is people even try to make this right vs left, or pro Trump/anti Trump. But we should all know better... At least in this community.

Both sides have kept the war machine churning for longer than its ever gone, and at the largest price in our nation's history.

Personally, I feel that the accountability for the lives lost in Iraq through Iranian proxy are as much on the politicians who sent them there. Hell, I even feel guilty I supported the damn war at the time, but I told myself I'd never follow politicians blindly again.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think too many are reading too much into it.

Many are practically "virtue signaling" their desire for no war based on nothing other than the death of this bastard terrorist dog.

Bad guy dead.

Is good that bad guy dead.

If bad guy was life, then bad guy kill more good guys.

More good guys die, that is bad.

So bad guy dead is good.