Scratch 2 top Iranian military terrorists

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Any time after he was elected president and when it wouldn’t have been an obvious direct response to when the Iranians hurt his ego.
You hate Trump. Period. There is no other explanation. Just admit that you cannot make a clear headed judgement about Trump because you hate him so bad. It would actually make you look smarter. You look like a fool with the reasoning you defend.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
You hate Trump. Period. There is no other explanation. Just admit that you cannot make a clear headed judgement about Trump because you hate him so bad. It would actually make you look smarter. You look like a fool with the reasoning you defend.
You worship Trump. Period. There is no other explanation. Just admit that you cannot make a clear headed judgement about Trump because you worship him so much. It would actually make you look smarter. You look like a fool with the reasoning you defend.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
You worship Trump. Period. There is no other explanation. Just admit that you cannot make a clear headed judgement about Trump because you worship him so much. It would actually make you look smarter. You look like a fool with the reasoning you defend.
It's a parrot!
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Trump's interview tonight with Ingraham on Fox will include Trump stating that they believe that Iran/ Soleimani were planning on attacking 4 US embassies with Iraq's being just one of them. If this is true- that would have most certainly meant war with Iran. That being the case- the early returns of the take out of Soleimani show this to be a big win for all of us who do not want a war.
I'd say that's American first.
"could have been"

 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
"could have been"

Lots of lefties here believed we were going to war with Iran b/c we killed Soleimani.

The hysterical left wrong again.

But you want to dissect every word spoken by Trump or Trump administration officials on news shows in hopes of saving face about the dire consequences of Trump’s action. Sad.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
Reader in STrib today:

"
The administration has said it had “specific” information that he was planning an “imminent,” “broad, large-scale attack,” but it didn’t know where and when it would happen, so:

1. If the administration doesn’t know where and when, how is the attack imminent, and how does the administration have specific information?

2. Why kill the guy who knows the where and when? Why not capture (we knew where he’d be and when) so we could interrogate him to find out and stop the attack? The administration could also take him to stand trial for war crimes and/or have leverage over Iran to trade for Americans being held.

3. Did killing him stop the attacks? Was he carrying the plan in his pocket when he was blown up and no one else knew the plan?

4. Was there any thought to what Iran might do in retaliation that put Americans in harm’s way?

5. President Donald Trump now says Soleimani was planning embassy attacks, so why didn’t congressional Republicans and Democrats hear that at their confidential briefing?

6. Trump has said his intelligence chiefs were “passive and naive” and suggested they “should go back to school” when they contradicted his beliefs. He also has said he doesn’t need intelligence briefings so he often skips them. So why does he believe them now?

7. If he believed them this time, didn’t they tell him what Iran’s reaction would be?

"
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,455
Reaction score
173
Points
63
If embassy attacks were planned, I assume they informed the embassies, correct? I haven’t heard much about that. Maybe I missed it. Can someone- maybe CRG, S2 or BGA- please send me that link? Thanks.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
The left is really concerned about protecting sources and methods except when they’re not.

What happened to trusting our intelligence agencies? The left was outraged when Trump didn’t take our intelligence agencies word.

Here’s the deal, you’re not going to get all the information that led to eliminating Soleimani. There’s a consensus of opinion that this guy was leading and organizing Iran’s affiliates attacks on US troops and personnel, and he deserved what he got. It does appear that this action has had an negative impact on Iran’s tyrannical government and temporarily stemmed further aggression.

There is no war. There are no large scale US troop influx. Iran is further screwed economically and militarily, and is further isolated from the world as a result of last week’s events.

Trump won this round and is leading in the fight with Iran.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
The only thing Iran has played badly -- and it was a bad mistake -- was shooting down the commercial plane on accident. That one is going to cost them.

Everything else ... was like Trump throwing curveballs into the dirt and the Iranian batter steps back and says "is that it?"


Soleimani dies a war hero and a martyr. He will be replaced by someone just as capable, younger, and likely more radical.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,455
Reaction score
173
Points
63
The left is really concerned about protecting sources and methods except when they’re not.

What happened to trusting our intelligence agencies? The left was outraged when Trump didn’t take our intelligence agencies word.

Here’s the deal, you’re not going to get all the information that led to eliminating Soleimani. There’s a consensus of opinion that this guy was leading and organizing Iran’s affiliates attacks on US troops and personnel, and he deserved what he got. It does appear that this action has had an negative impact on Iran’s tyrannical government and temporarily stemmed further aggression.

There is no war. There are no large scale US troop influx. Iran is further screwed economically and militarily, and is further isolated from the world as a result of last week’s events.

Trump won this round and is leading in the fight with Iran.
KFC, if attacks were imminent, we should be hearing some specific information about that. Nobody is asking for GPS coordinates and classified information. We are asking for more details than "trust us, it was about to happen......maybe......someday.......we're certain of it...........he's a bad guy......"

Hell, I probably agree, this guy needed to go. But I'm not just going to take their word for it. And I do want to be cautious about taking out foreign leaders. Why not the North Korea guy, if we're doing that?

You have been marching this argument out for a while now. Ever heard of trust but verify? If our intelligence agencies present compelling data showing something that corresponds with what we are being told, I tend to trust them - like, for example, the fact that Russia actively was attempting to undermine our democracy - which, interestingly is your Exhibit A above (huh? It happened.). If they say, "don't worry about it, or evidence is completely absent or contrary, no, I don't trust them and I will ask for more.

So should you.

Also, while I agree that nothing has boiled over and the current circumstances are not alarming, that can change in an instant and I would caution you throwing the party just yet.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,716
Reaction score
195
Points
63
KFC, if attacks were imminent, we should be hearing some specific information about that. Nobody is asking for GPS coordinates and classified information. We are asking for more details than "trust us, it was about to happen......maybe......someday.......we're certain of it...........he's a bad guy......"

Hell, I probably agree, this guy needed to go. But I'm not just going to take their word for it. And I do want to be cautious about taking out foreign leaders. Why not the North Korea guy, if we're doing that?

You have been marching this argument out for a while now. Ever heard of trust but verify? If our intelligence agencies present compelling data showing something that corresponds with what we are being told, I tend to trust them - like, for example, the fact that Russia actively was attempting to undermine our democracy - which, interestingly is your Exhibit A above (huh? It happened.). If they say, "don't worry about it, or evidence is completely absent or contrary, no, I don't trust them and I will ask for more.

So should you.

Also, while I agree that nothing has boiled over and the current circumstances are not alarming, that can change in an instant and I would caution you throwing the party just yet.
US got lucky that Russia and/or China werent willing to go to bat at this time for their ally Iran
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
KFC, if attacks were imminent, we should be hearing some specific information about that. Nobody is asking for GPS coordinates and classified information. We are asking for more details than "trust us, it was about to happen......maybe......someday.......we're certain of it...........he's a bad guy......"

Hell, I probably agree, this guy needed to go. But I'm not just going to take their word for it. And I do want to be cautious about taking out foreign leaders. Why not the North Korea guy, if we're doing that?

You have been marching this argument out for a while now. Ever heard of trust but verify? If our intelligence agencies present compelling data showing something that corresponds with what we are being told, I tend to trust them - like, for example, the fact that Russia actively was attempting to undermine our democracy - which, interestingly is your Exhibit A above (huh? It happened.). If they say, "don't worry about it, or evidence is completely absent or contrary, no, I don't trust them and I will ask for more.

So should you.

Also, while I agree that nothing has boiled over and the current circumstances are not alarming, that can change in an instant and I would caution you throwing the party just yet.
Caution is recommended- Iran is nuts.

That said, why would Soleimani be any different than bin Laden or Baghdadi? All were terror leaders and all had killed Americans as enemy combatants. Soleimani was planning for and carrying out the wishes of Khameni, but he was not the foreign leader, not like Kim, the example you gave or like Ghaddafi who Obama had offed.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
US got lucky that Russia and/or China werent willing to go to bat at this time for their ally Iran
Yeah, good thing that one of the other good guys didn't strike down the evil imperialist America on behalf of poor old Iran! ;)
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,085
Reaction score
305
Points
83
The only thing Iran has played badly -- and it was a bad mistake -- was shooting down the commercial plane on accident. That one is going to cost them.

Everything else ... was like Trump throwing curveballs into the dirt and the Iranian batter steps back and says "is that it?"


Soleimani dies a war hero and a martyr. He will be replaced by someone just as capable, younger, and likely more radical.
Other than lying about it??????????? Pathetic.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
Yeah, good thing that one of the other good guys didn't strike down the evil imperialist America on behalf of poor old Iran!
Very dishonest misframing of what he said, he didn’t imply that in the slightest.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
In all seriousness, seems about half of GH post are purposeful (dishonest) misframings of the ideas the other person is trying to convey.

Really sad, that’s what we are.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
The left is really concerned about protecting sources and methods except when they’re not.

What happened to trusting our intelligence agencies? The left was outraged when Trump didn’t take our intelligence agencies word.

Here’s the deal, you’re not going to get all the information that led to eliminating Soleimani. There’s a consensus of opinion that this guy was leading and organizing Iran’s affiliates attacks on US troops and personnel, and he deserved what he got. It does appear that this action has had an negative impact on Iran’s tyrannical government and temporarily stemmed further aggression.

There is no war. There are no large scale US troop influx. Iran is further screwed economically and militarily, and is further isolated from the world as a result of last week’s events.

Trump won this round and is leading in the fight with Iran.
No one is questioning the intelligence community. We're questioning our lying President and his lying SOS.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,678
Reaction score
326
Points
83
Much adieu about nothing. There is no "gotcha" to be found here Dems, move long. What Trump did was legal & he doesn't have to explain it to Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi.

What's fascinating though is the ability Trump has to get the left to support the worst of the worst. Soleamani, Iran, Al Baghdadi, MS13, Mexican drug cartels, open borders, sanctuary cities, post-birth abortions (i.e. murders), blackface, Klan robes, cop killers, etc. There are no "moderates" left in the Democratic Party.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,455
Reaction score
173
Points
63
Much adieu about nothing. There is no "gotcha" to be found here Dems, move long. What Trump did was legal & he doesn't have to explain it to Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi.

What's fascinating though is the ability Trump has to get the left to support the worst of the worst. Soleamani, Iran, Al Baghdadi, MS13, Mexican drug cartels, open borders, sanctuary cities, post-birth abortions (i.e. murders), blackface, Klan robes, cop killers, etc. There are no "moderates" left in the Democratic Party.
Nobody supports those things and you very well know that, CRG. Stupid post in a now long line of them for you in the past year. This is the real TDS. You get off on "owning libs" rather than "owning your own supposed principles." It's boring.

And, worst of all, you spelled 'ado' wrong!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,678
Reaction score
326
Points
83
Nobody supports those things and you very well know that, CRG. Stupid post in a now long line of them for you in the past year. This is the real TDS. You get off on "owning libs" rather than "owning your own supposed principles." It's boring.

And, worst of all, you spelled 'ado' wrong!
You'll be first in line to vote for these things in November. Own it.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Very dishonest misframing of what he said, he didn’t imply that in the slightest.
Not in that post. The overall theme of his posts: don't trust America, we have been the war mongers of the world and we more so than Iran or others are at fault for the world's wars and problems. If he would like to state otherwise, I would love to hear it from him.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
No one is questioning the intelligence community. We're questioning our lying President and his lying SOS.
You have not one stitch of information to show that either are lying. But that doesn't stop you from lying about them. Just another post for you.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
In all seriousness, seems about half of GH post are purposeful (dishonest) misframings of the ideas the other person is trying to convey.

Really sad, that’s what we are.
Your half.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,678
Reaction score
326
Points
83
Not in that post. The overall theme of his posts: don't trust America, we have been the war mongers of the world and we more so than Iran or others are at fault for the world's wars and problems. If he would like to state otherwise, I would love to hear it from him.
The attitude is that of the spoiled rotten. Like the rich kid who never had to work for anything & thus doesn't appreciate anything.
 
Top Bottom