What's new
By:

Our Embassy is Under Attack

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Zombie said:


Definitely the words of a man who is trying to de-escalate conflict.
Click to expand...


Trump is Hitler's cousin, retarded Hitler. One U.S. citizen dead so let's assassinate their top General. Then when they retaliate let's kill hundreds or thousands in 52 locations, using the brilliant symbolism of hostages taken over 40 years ago. Then they set off a dirty bomb in NYC, killing tens of thousands. Then we nuke them, killing millions.

There is plenty of time left in his Reign of Retard to outdo his cousin.
 
I just hope no one in the Iranian government makes any kind of comment about Trump's tiny hands.
That would definitely start a full blown war.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
"I think the best definition would be either one of assassination or murder," Gary Solis, a retired Marine who taught on the laws of war at West Point, tells NPR. He says what happened is comparable to Iran killing a high-ranking U.S. military official with a bomb on U.S. soil.”
 
jazzlurker said:
The Kurds have been at war for over 300 years trying to reclaim their territory. Trump didn’t create that conflict. Allying with the Kurds to defeat ISIS did not cause their current conflict. It was already there.

Do some research on the genocide of the Kurdish people and you will see it is asinine to blame Trump for their deaths.

Also, do some research on how the Kurds have funded their military through the opium trade. How much of that opium has lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

nevermind... I will go back to lurking.
Click to expand...

We allied with them. We used them to defeat our enemies (ISIS) and as a reward turned out backs to them against their enemies (Turkey and Syria). And for what benefit? We didn’t send troops home or save money. Trump immediately reassigned troops fighting jointly with Kurdish forces to other parts of the Middle East. Donald did that because he has financial interests in Turkey. You’re fine with that?

Yes, please, go back to lurking. If this is the worldview you share, then no one is enlightened by your posting.
 
str8line said:
"I think the best definition would be either one of assassination or murder," Gary Solis, a retired Marine who taught on the laws of war at West Point, tells NPR. He says what happened is comparable to Iran killing a high-ranking U.S. military official with a bomb on U.S. soil.”
Click to expand...

I do think there’s a difference between us taking this guy out and Iran taking out Mike Pompeo. I get he was bigtime in Iran and was rumored to be next in line to head their government. So by position I understand he’d be like a Sec of State. However, Iran IS a state sponsor of terror. We are not. This guy lurked in the shadows to stir the pot throughout the Middle East. So it’s not the typical assassination of a state leader. I don’t think this same thing as taking out Franz Ferdinand.

My issue is why? Why now? This guy was bad news 2 or 3 years ago, right? Why didn’t we take him out then? If taking out this guy was a priority, why haven’t we been building a coalition with our allies so in the case this escalates, we’re better positioned for war? Are we ready for possible regime change?

If trump weren’t being impeached, would this operation have happened?
 
The Thriller said:
I do think there’s a difference between us taking this guy out and Iran taking out Mike Pompeo. I get he was bigtime in Iran and was rumored to be next in line to head their government. So by position I understand he’d be like a Sec of State. However, Iran IS a state sponsor of terror. We are not. This guy lurked in the shadows to stir the pot throughout the Middle East. So it’s not the typical assassination of a state leader. I don’t think this same thing as taking out Franz Ferdinand.
Click to expand...
Just to play devils advocate here a bit, the US has "sponsored terrorism" when it suited us.
 
The Thriller said:
We allied with them. We used them to defeat our enemies (ISIS) and as a reward turned out backs to them against their enemies (Turkey and Syria). And for what benefit? We didn’t send troops home or save money. Trump immediately reassigned troops fighting jointly with Kurdish forces to other parts of the Middle East. Donald did that because he has financial interests in Turkey. You’re fine with that?

Yes, please, go back to lurking. If this is the worldview you share, then no one is enlightened by your posting.
Click to expand...

You are hilarious. I am not defending or supporting Trump. You don’t know why he pulled troops from Syria. NONE of us here are in that loop. Don’t taint my words with your bias. Don’t assume you know what my worldview is.
 
jazzlurker said:
You are hilarious. I am not defending or supporting Trump. You don’t know why he pulled troops from Syria. NONE of us here are in that loop. Don’t taint my words with your bias. Don’t assume you know what my worldview is.
Click to expand...

It was widely reported that Trump pulled our support of the Kurds due to business interests in Turkey. Even John Bolton, his national security advisor, admitted to such:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ome-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

again, this is why I said, get informed first.

Additional homework:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ss-connections-turkey-back-spotlight-n1064011
 
Zombie said:


Definitely the words of a man who is trying to de-escalate conflict.

If a foreign power was threatening to attack our cultural sites we'd call that terrorism, and be right to do so.
Click to expand...

It’s like he can’t wait for Iran to do something. That’s why I think that they either suck it up, or go all in. The retaliation wouldn’t be a little oopsie.

We are ruled by a lunatic folks.
 
Archie Moses said:
This.

Just because critics like Thriller/journalists don't know what the strategy is doesn't mean there's not. I like to think the military advised the president to sign off on the attack and have plan a, b and c in place.
Click to expand...

Remember how you agreed that we shouldn’t reveal our strategy? Look at what Dear Leader just tweeted:



I know we’ve had our differences, but I think even you and I can both agree that tweeting this out probably isn’t great. This certainly wasn’t the “strategy reveal” or “vision” I was asking for. If we want to set the Arab world on fire (not to mention our allies, by committing war crimes) let’s blow up important cultural and religious sites! Sites that are protected by international law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

But I think it’s a clear look inside the mindset of the most simple and transparent president we’ve ever had.
 
Trump means this massive threat to be a deterrent.

So if Iran behaves the way Donnie hopes, they put their tail between their legs and run away. What Trump fails to realize us that this outcome is politically impossible for the Iranians. They will respond.

So what they will do is a smaller response, one that would make Trump look terrible with an asymmetric bombing of 52 sites, if trump does so, the region and our allies goes more strongly anti American. If trump does not attack, we are seen by the Iranians as weaker, similar to when trump backed down last time.

So his lack of strategic thinking has painted us into a corner.

Tiddlywinks thinking.

Then Iran does another smaller attack. Rinse repeat.

it is unfortunate that he has so clearly signaled our next move. I’m sure the game theory advisors in the Pentagon and State Department are pulling out hairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top