Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Ben Done · 09-01-2020 11:44pm

everlast75 wrote: »

The latest Trumpcast made reference to the interview. I googled the interview itself and some pages revealed what was said

I presume it was someone lower than Mark Burnett?
As far as I know, he has kept omerta on on the whole thing - another rabbit hole, if you wanted to go delving into Burnett's role in this extraordinary psychodrama.

Thargor · 09-01-2020 11:51pm

Oafley Jones wrote: »

From https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/lindsey-graham-senate-trump-928948/

“People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now,” Schmidt says. “The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea. Lindsey has a real draw to power — but he’s found it unattainable on his own merits.”

Thats such a perfect metaphor for all the Republicans these days tbh. Remember the likes of Romney and Cruz before and after the last election.

Paleface · 09-01-2020 11:57pm

To accidentally shoot down a plane that took off in your own airspace is nothing but pure incompetence. It’s a PR disaster for Iran. RIP to the innocent victims.

None of this would have transpired if Trump hadn’t overstepped in the first place of course. I suspect there is more to come in this chain of events.

StringerBell · 10-01-2020 12:06am

Hopefully it will be back to the usual proxy fighting. Further escalation in an official capacity is going to be very hard to stop snowballing out of control given The Donald's unpredictable nature and propensity to dig further when in a hole.

Iran are allowing external investigators in to examine the scene I read a few hours ago. That will hopefully go some way to clearing this particular mess up definitively.

volchitsa · 10-01-2020 12:08am

peddlelies wrote: »

No intended slight on the victims intended. Iran's initial response was very timid given that the US assassinated their second most powerful man, it was a bit of save face. Now with proof they shot down an innocent passenger plane they come out of this recent conflict with the US looking weak and incompetent.

It's certainly a disaster for them, including the way it has also taken attention from the fact that their attack on the US side of the airbase they hit was a lot more accurate than the Americans had thought they could manage (it seems they hit the room where Trump was filmed meeting the troops last Thanksgiving day).

peddlelies wrote: »

The Political hawks will be loving it, it's just such a monstrosity so many innocent people died. I won't go as far to say that Trump has blood on his hands though, that fault lies with the Iranians.

How on earth could anyone think that - at worst their security systems failed, but they were on war alert after an illegal attack against a high ranking member of their government.

By that logic, Trump has as much blood on his hands from any one of those weddings the Americans are in the habit of bombing in that part of the world.

Outlaw Pete · 10-01-2020 2:32am

Paleface wrote: »

None of this would have transpired if Trump hadn’t overstepped in the first place of course.

None of this would have transpired if Iran hadn't killed an Iraqi-American contractor and then planned to carry out further such attacks. Soleimani was a terrorist. He deserved to die.

volchitsa wrote: »

..they were on war alert after an illegal attack against a high ranking member of their government.

It was not an illegal attack and referring to him as a "high ranking member of their government" is laughable. He was a terrorist, pure and simple, and the pearl clutching over his death by the left (worldwide) is, as ever, very telling. It shows just how low these people are willing to go in their efforts to oust Pres. Trump from office. Lord do they want power badly.

Not that we didn't know that already of course, as almost every liberal in a position of power in western society has done whatever they could do to undermine Trump's presidency over the last three years. From FBI falsifying emails, lying to fellow investigators, the DNC paying scum for salacious gossip so it could then be used as grounds to spy on the Trump campaign, and all with the ultimate goal of leaking these malicious lies to the media in an effort to sway the public away from voting for Trump, the man the Kremlin supposedly had all that compromising info on.

I had thought Hillary, Brennan, Comey and the leftist MSM selling their collective souls to do what they could to try and ensure Trump wasn't elected (/was impeached after he was elected) was as low as the leftists in power could get, but no, as they have really outdone themselves this past week taking the side of terrorists who chant 'Death to America' on the regular. Simply doesn't matter to them of course. They'd clearly defend Hitler if they thought it would be even one more cut in the death by a thousand cuts crusade they're undoubtedly on.

Their concern for the Iranians is about as genuine as the concern for children detained at the border, or Christine Ford, or that Ukraine got its lethal aid etc etc [insert your favourite Trump accusation here]. Sincere principled expressions of concern from democrats in the US is all but nonexistent for quite some time now. Sanctimony is all we hear and all we are likely to hear for the foreseeable. Which of course will just ensure that Pres. Trump gets to spend four more years on Pennsylvania Ave and so he should given the exceptional job he has done, despite the constant obstruction from the majority of democrats in Congress.

BonnieSituation · 10-01-2020 3:46am

No-one deserves to die.

You can hate and even inflict death upon someone who committed a heinous act upon you, but no-one deserves to die.

You are not the judge nor the jury.

everlast75 · 10-01-2020 7:54am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

No-one deserves to die.

You can hate and even inflict death upon someone who committed a heinous act upon you, but no-one deserves to die.

You are not the judge nor the jury.

There are a number of reasons why what trump did was wrong. In no particular order;

1) a general being assassinated not proportionate to the killing of a contractor
2) not notifying the Iraqis
3) not securing support from allies
4) not notifying the gang of eight
5) not notifying Congress
6) it displayed Trump's ignorance of intentional law when he commented that he was going to hit cultural sites etc

And that's just from the general knowledge available at this time.

But most of all, you know it's wrong because the "reason" for it, according to Pompeo, Haspill etc was that there was an "imminent threat". They have singularly failed to prove that, both in the tv appearances but more worryingly in the intelligence briefings. That's according to not only the Democrats, but Republicans too.

But Trump supporters, keep reverse engineering "reasons". It must be exhausting.

Christy42 · 10-01-2020 8:19am

I mean I would take Sanctimony over threatening the Iranian people with war crimes every day of the week. How anyone defending him just glosses over that is beyond me.

Don't give me any of that terrorist stuff. No one cared about that when the order was given. The middle East is about oil. That is why you can help people kill thousands of innocent Americans with some planes and still have US president's selling you more weapons for years to come.

Igotadose · 10-01-2020 9:13am

Judge rules E. Jean Carroll's rape accusation case against Trump can proceed. Seems like Team Trump didn't do much in defense, just delaying tactics. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/477644-ny-judge-denies-trump-request-to-dismiss-lawsuit-by-e-jean-carroll

Igotadose · 10-01-2020 9:39am

DOJ closes Uranium One investigation after finding nothing. More tax dollars wasted in support of Fox News and Facebook bots.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justice-department-clinton-investigation-finds-nothing_n_5e17f328c5b6da971d13717c

I'm so looking forward to the raft of investigations starting up once Trump's out of office into all the shenanigans he and his crime syndicate are getting into now.

On a different note, wasn't there 'durham barr' or something going on about the Russian investigation? I wonder if that's failed to find anything so Trump decided to distract with Iran, too.

VinLieger · 10-01-2020 10:46am

everlast75 wrote: »

There are a number of reasons why what trump did was wrong. In no particular order;

1) a general being assassinated not proportionate to the killing of a contractor
2) not notifying the Iraqis
3) not securing support from allies
4) not notifying the gang of eight
5) not notifying Congress
6) it displayed Trump's ignorance of intentional law when he commented that he was going to hit cultural sites etc

And that's just from the general knowledge available at this time.

But most of all, you know it's wrong because the "reason" for it, according to Pompeo, Haspill etc was that there was an "imminent threat". They have singularly failed to prove that, both in the tv appearances but more worryingly in the intelligence briefings. That's according to not only the Democrats, but Republicans too.

But Trump supporters, keep reverse engineering "reasons". It must be exhausting.

Not only did they not notify the Iraqis they used them to draw him to negotiations regarding US Iranian relations, killing an official of a foreign government who is on the way to negiations with you that you requested is fvcking deplorable.

B0jangles · 10-01-2020 10:58am

VinLieger wrote: »

Not only did they not notify the Iraqis they used them to draw him to negotiations regarding US Iranian relations, killing an official of a foreign government who is on the way to negiations with you that you requested is fvcking deplorable.

It's almost beyond belief that so many of Trump's foreign policy actions have just coincidentally had the result of causing extreme damage to the US's long-term reputation as an ally and as a negotiator.

Who would sign up to any deal, any negotiation, any sensitive meeting with the US at this point, after seeing what's been done to the Iran Deal, the Kurdish alliance and now the Iraqis used as decoys to get at Soleimani?

And what long-term benefit has been achieved by all this bad-faith dealing?

Stallingrad · 10-01-2020 11:12am

Can't see how the downing of this jet can be blamed in any way on the US. That Iranian airspace was not shut down with missiles being launched and everyone at a heightened state of alert is madness.

The Iranians were probably primed for a response to their missiles being launched and someone just made a tragic mistake firing on a civilian target.

Leroy42 · 10-01-2020 11:26am

Stallingrad wrote: »

Can't see how the downing of this jet can be blamed in any way on the US. That Iranian airspace was not shut down with missiles being launched and everyone at a heightened state of alert is madness.

The Iranians were probably primed for a response to their missiles being launched and someone just made a tragic mistake firing on a civilian target.

The point being that that heightening state was as a direct result of the actions of Trump. It is also telling that the likes of Hannity were stating that the US were ready with fighter and bombing aircraft. So taking all that together, it would appear that a trigger happy crew made a terrible mistake.

And the Iranians should of course have shut down the airspace.

So blame all round.

Cody montana · 10-01-2020 11:31am

Igotadose wrote: »

DOJ closes Uranium One investigation after finding nothing. More tax dollars wasted in support of Fox News and Facebook bots.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justice-department-clinton-investigation-finds-nothing_n_5e17f328c5b6da971d13717c

I'm so looking forward to the raft of investigations starting up once Trump's out of office into all the shenanigans he and his crime syndicate are getting into now.

On a different note, wasn't there 'durham barr' or something going on about the Russian investigation? I wonder if that's failed to find anything so Trump decided to distract with Iran, too.

Is that three investigation in a row that turned up nothing??

everlast75 · 10-01-2020 11:34am

Cody montana wrote: »

Is that three investigation in a row that turned up nothing??

Best investigate the investigators!

Stallingrad · 10-01-2020 11:40am

Leroy42 wrote: »

The point being that that heightening state was as a direct result of the actions of Trump.

I agree of course, but still think the blame for this incident lies entirely with Iran.

If the US had shot down a civilian plane leaving Riyad during the Gulf War I doubt anyone would say the Iraqis were at fault.

Gwen Cooper · 10-01-2020 12:17pm

If you have a minute, read this thread by Seth Abramson:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1215347774545416193

It's an interesting look at the plane crash. Apparently shortly before the plane went down, Hannity was just opening his show with a nice speech implying that Iran is going to get bombed, pretty much said that the planes are already on the way.

Abramson thinks that given Hannity's relationship with Trump, his show would be something that Iran keeps an eye on, and when they heard Hannity saying that an attack is imminent, they could have gotten freaked out a bit and shoot a low flying plane down.

I don't believe that theory much, but a little part of me that says that it would be possible.

StringerBell · 10-01-2020 12:30pm

Stallingrad wrote: »

I agree of course, but still think the blame for this incident lies entirely with Iran.

If the US had shot down a civilian plane leaving Riyad during the Gulf War I doubt anyone would say the Iraqis were at fault.

I guarantee some people actually would have blamed Iraq. At least partially, very like all involved here have blood on their hands.

Whatever went wrong that night, and not having the airspace closed alone is a major **** up and Iran may take 95% of the blame they are not alone in bearing responsibility. The US has shot down a civilian plane before as a reference.

osarusan · 10-01-2020 1:07pm

I think it's a real stretch to try and pin the downing of the flight on anything other than Iranian failure.

StringerBell · 10-01-2020 1:17pm

osarusan wrote: »

I think it's a real stretch to try and pin the downing of the flight on anything other than Iranian failure.

Of course, when you treat the incident as if it happened in a vacuum. The thing is, nothing actually happens in a vacuum.

osarusan · 10-01-2020 1:26pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Of course, when you treat the incident as if it happened in a vacuum. The thing is, nothing actually happens in a vacuum.

Even within the context of heightened tensions caused by the assassination and subsequent retaliation, I think it's a real stretch.

StringerBell · 10-01-2020 1:30pm

osarusan wrote: »

Even within the context of heightened tensions caused by the assassination and subsequent retaliation, I think it's a real stretch.

I'm ok with that. I draw a different conclusion but accept that yours is not an unreasonable position to hold.

I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that without the action of the Trump administration this plane would have made its journey unmolested as it has done 5 days a week up to that night.

AbusesToilets · 10-01-2020 1:40pm

It's hard to look at the last weeks actions and not see it as a win from Trump's perspective. Killed a top enemy of the US, Iran snookered themselves, increases the likelihood of US troops being made to leave Iraq. Seems he's managed to blunder his way into a beneficial situation for himself fairly handily. He can stand on a stance of taking decisive action, possibly fulfill a promise to bring troops home, and weakened the US's biggest rival in the region.

Yay

osarusan · 10-01-2020 2:47pm

Yeah, the US managed to assassinate a leading figure in the Iranian military, and the retaliation cost no loss of life, just some damage to a base, and they get to impose sanctions with widespread support/acceptance.

The downed flight is a different tangent but a huge Iranian own goal, just when they might have felt that they had saved face to a degree.

People have mentioned Iran playing the 'long game' and cyberwarfare and proxies but I'm not sure there is too much to that.

Not sure they want their troops to be leaving Iraq anytime soon though.

Christy42 · 10-01-2020 3:19pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's hard to look at the last weeks actions and not see it as a win from Trump's perspective. Killed a top enemy of the US, Iran snookered themselves, increases the likelihood of US troops being made to leave Iraq. Seems he's managed to blunder his way into a beneficial situation for himself fairly handily. He can stand on a stance of taking decisive action, possibly fulfill a promise to bring troops home, and weakened the US's biggest rival in the region.

Yay

I think openly advocating that the US should commit war crimes could come back to haunt him.

I mean I get the US has been involved in dodgy dealings for a while in that area but an official presidential statement advocating that US should commit war crimes is something new.

duploelabs · 10-01-2020 3:22pm

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, the US managed to assassinate a leading figure in the Iranian military, and the retaliation cost no loss of life, just some damage to a base, and they get to impose sanctions with widespread support/acceptance.

The downed flight is a different tangent but a huge Iranian own goal, just when they might have felt that they had saved face to a degree.

People have mentioned Iran playing the 'long game' and cyberwarfare and proxies but I'm not sure there is too much to that.

Not sure they want their troops to be leaving Iraq anytime soon though.

To think that the matter of assassination and the resulting response from Iran is closed, is very naive. The purpose of sanctions was to turn the people against the ruling party to affect regime change, and it was working. But the assassination unified the nation of Iran behind its government, undoing years upon years of sanctions

26000 Elephants · 10-01-2020 4:14pm

Stallingrad wrote: »

The Iranians were probably primed for a response to their missiles being launched and someone just made a tragic mistake firing on a civilian target.

They must have been watching Hannity on Fox News at the time - he said the US had B-52' bombers heading to 'the region' during a screed hinting at an all out attack on Iran.

What did Woody Allen say about life imitating bad TV?

I think the US' decent to full blown terrorist state along with Iran and the rest is nearly complete. They are all the same now, with no regard to international law or decency.

everlast75 · 10-01-2020 4:21pm

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1215642262748659714?s=19

Almost like a quid pro quo, if you will....

eire4 · 10-01-2020 5:19pm

duploelabs wrote: »

Not to trivialise it, but it's nothing more than a wag the dog scenario. The Trump administration is still yet to publish any evidence of the immediate threat of war to warrant the hit of Sulimani, and any response from him is to 'trust the intelligence departments. The same intelligence divisions that he's constantly derided when they conflicted with his' cultured' World view

From anything I have seen that is because there was no evidence to justify the US assassination. Even a couple of Republicans basically admitted as much yesterday after a so called briefing. Then there has been the usual lies and blaming the whole fiasco this has become on Obama lying that Obama paid the Irian's money as part of the nuclear deal they signed which is just a lie they simply unfroze what was Iranian money. Bottom line is while far from perfect the deal with Iran had calmed things and set a platform to maybe build on in the future and instead everything has got worse and worse since the US ditched that deal.
I should also say once again what is not addressed is Iran is portrayed as this purely evil country and this is all coming from a country in the US that is hand in glove in bed with and propping up once of the most oppressive nasty regimes in the world in Saudi Arabia. Iran are certainly not good guys but they are not worse then the Saudi's.

eire4 · 10-01-2020 5:26pm

Christy42 wrote: »

I think openly advocating that the US should commit war crimes could come back to haunt him.

I mean I get the US has been involved in dodgy dealings for a while in that area but an official presidential statement advocating that US should commit war crimes is something new.

Not his first go round either openly advocating for committing war crimes after he talked about deliberately targeting and killing the families of ISIS fighters.

eire4 · 10-01-2020 5:29pm

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1215642262748659714?s=19

Almost like a quid pro quo, if you will....

Would not surprise me as with most things its all about him not what is in the best interest of the collective but whats in it for him. Now as a result tensions are a lot higher and thanks to a monumental screw up in not closing their own airspace on Wednesday almost 200 completely innocent civilians are dead as part of the whole fiasco.

Christy42 · 10-01-2020 5:39pm

eire4 wrote: »

From anything I have seen that is because there was no evidence to justify the US assassination. Even a couple of Republicans basically admitted as much yesterday after a so called briefing. Then there has been the usual lies and blaming the whole fiasco this has become on Obama lying that Obama paid the Irian's money as part of the nuclear deal they signed which is just a lie they simply unfroze what was Iranian money. Bottom line is while far from perfect the deal with Iran had calmed things and set a platform to maybe build on in the future and instead everything has got worse and worse since the US ditched that deal.
I should also say once again what is not addressed is Iran is portrayed as this purely evil country and this is all coming from a country in the US that is hand in glove in bed with and propping up once of the most oppressive nasty regimes in the world in Saudi Arabia. Iran are certainly not good guys but they are not worse then the Saudi's.

Indeed. In addition to the lack of evidence we also know Pompeo lied about it. He said they didn't know when the attack was going to be (or where) but they did know it was imminent? How did they know that if they didn't know when it would be?

Itssoeasy · 10-01-2020 6:55pm

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1215642262748659714?s=19

Almost like a quid pro quo, if you will....

GOP Senators you say ? Well seeing as Lindsay graham is all praise and if you believe him was more in the loop on the plans than nearly all in congress he's clearly one of those GOP senators.

jjpep · 10-01-2020 7:23pm

His trumpness seems to be telling a few more fibs on a different topic here;

BBC News - Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

Such a classy guy...

Itssoeasy · 10-01-2020 7:33pm

jjpep wrote: »

His trumpness seems to be telling a few more fibs on a different topic here;

BBC News - Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

Such a classy guy...

He's just someone who can't stand other people getting recognition for things they've actually done as opposed to him and his family who've bought everything they've gotten yet still are shunned by the people in New York they want to be liked by. Money can't buy class as they say.

woohoo!!! · 10-01-2020 7:35pm

jjpep wrote: »

His trumpness seems to be telling a few more fibs on a different topic here;

BBC News - Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

Such a classy guy...

Just give him a Noble prize, and say nathin

Cody montana · 10-01-2020 8:01pm

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Just give him a Noble prize, and say nathin

With chocolate inside?

Water John · 10-01-2020 9:29pm

Nah, just give him an Ignoble one, he won't spot the difference.

droidus · 10-01-2020 11:27pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was not an illegal attack and referring to him as a "high ranking member of their government" is laughable. He was a terrorist, pure and simple, and the pearl clutching over his death by the left (worldwide) is, as ever, very telling.

The U.N. Charter states that the use of force is legitimate only if undertaken in self-defense or authorized by the United Nations. There is no justification for this attack under either of these criteria. It was an assassination, illegal under international law. By your standards any state which designates a person as a terrorist would be permitted to murder them without trial.

This is not 'pearl clutching' its simply fact.

Manic Moran · 11-01-2020 12:39am

droidus wrote: »

The U.N. Charter states that the use of force is legitimate only if undertaken in self-defense or authorized by the United Nations. There is no justification for this attack under either of these criteria. It was an assassination, illegal under international law. By your standards any state which designates a person as a terrorist would be permitted to murder them without trial.

This is not 'pearl clutching' its simply fact.

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

droidus · 11-01-2020 12:43am

Strangely enough, whether or not 'people' think something is a 'bad call' doesn't have any grounding in the framework of international law designed to prevent powerful nations from acting with murderous impunity.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-01-2020 12:53am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

Any (reputable) sources he was?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

He aint dead, kidnapped, but not dead

spacecoyote · 11-01-2020 1:50am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

It's almost impossible to prove a negative & is a pretty farcical attempt to justify an action

StringerBell · 11-01-2020 1:52am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

That's not really how the whole evidence thing is supposed to operate.

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

I'm not even going to point out the difference between the two, because you already know, and if you don't already know I'm absolutely flabbergasted all things considered.

eire4 · 11-01-2020 2:53am

If the US had any real legitimate justification for this assassination it would have been out before now. But all we have is changing excuses which differ by the day. Any creditability to tell the truth in this regime has long since evaporated but whether this whole fiasco which has indirectly caused the death of 200 odd innocent civilians is a case of wag the dog or not it is clear that once again all we are getting is lies as excuses.

As for any interest in international law that is risible. From a man who has just recently threatened to commit a war crime by destroying cultural sites and of course this is not the first time he has been open about being happy to commit war crimes.

MadYaker · 11-01-2020 2:58am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

If we can't find evidence that he isn't a terrorist he must be a terrorist. Gotcha. Tbh if thats how it works for US intellegence and military it would explain a lot. Lets ignore the fact that there shouldn't be a single US soilder in Iraq to start with.

Manic Moran · 11-01-2020 6:02am

MadYaker wrote: »

If we can't find evidence that he isn't a terrorist he must be a terrorist. Gotcha. Tbh if thats how it works for US intellegence and military it would explain a lot. Lets ignore the fact that there shouldn't be a single US soilder in Iraq to start with.

The foreign operations of Quds and IRGC have been well known in public domain circles for many years. I'm not responsible if you don't keep up with that aspect of current events. . It's the cost of doing business. We kill their soldiers, they kill ours. Business as normal. If the Soviets killed a CIA commander in Afghanistan in company with the Mujahadeen, there wouldn't have been a particular outcry. After all, was there proof there was ever a CIA operative in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s? Do you doubt that there was such a person?

smurgen · 11-01-2020 10:28am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

The burden of proof rests upon those making accusations.

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Comments