Soleimani was going to blow up our Embassy. That was the imminent threat

[The Original Tree]

Creepitus:

“I’m not Commenting on clear evidence of Salami being a mass Murdering Terrorist. I am saying that he isn’t a terrorist, and he was more like Elvis or Princess Di, and he was murdered.

Murdered by American Terrorists & Orange Man Bad.”

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

I seriously doubt this is true.

Since when is it not ok for a U.S. president to take out a designated terrorist if offered the opportunity? No doubt Trump was given the intel of Suelemani's whereabouts for a reason.

Terrorist Designation of Ibrahim Suleiman Hamad Al-Hablain

You do realize he supported Hezbollah in Lebananon. Does someone need to educate you in the hell Hezbollah has been wreaking on Lebanon and the M.E. ?
Why is it that Democrats have to adopt the terrorist state of Iran's talking points because they dont like Trump.
i would say its more likely than not that the imminent threat was real, which probably was the reason Trump was given the location of Mr S. by the intelligence community.

I'm.not commenting on that, I'm commenting on the likely hood of tRump being honest with us about the reasoning behind it.

Lol, I said tRump and reasoning in the same sentence!

 

[progressive hunter]

killed quite a few too.

ain't no one really innocent; no matter how much you try and pretend your causes are such and no one elses ever could be.

Don't make it a practice of ever having the moral authority in any subject then.

when did morals come into it???
salalmi and iran are terrorist that want & do kill americans,,,I dont see a moral problem with killing them first,,,

I know, you guys think morality is a weakness unless you're clumsily using it to club others with.

you will have to explain that one a little better,,,

Abortion and basically any argument where you guys throw religion into it.

who is "you guys"???

as far as this discussion goes, its the iranians that are using religion and trying to kill us and anyone that disagrees with their religion,,

all we are doing is killing them first,,morals are irrelevant,,,itrs called self preservation.,,,

 

[The Original Tree]

Forever Dishonest. Thank God there is a judgment day that people like that face.

BTW, Massad, MI-16 confirmed that Soleimani planned bigger attacks and was in Iraq to plan a full blown terrorist attack to completely blow up The US Embassy.

Exactly, so what is the point? Why are we wasting trillions of dollars being just as stupid?

Isn't 18 years where will it end, hyperbole?

I have no clue when it will end and you don't answer a question with a question.

So what is the point?

That's fine. I'm speaking to someone who never answers questions in you.

How come you keep doing things you chide others for?

Right, there is no point.

I was asked whether I was OK with others getting nuclear weapons. I said I was. I then was asked that 5 more times .

Again, what is the point?

And yesterday I asked you a lot of questions you never answered. Someone else noted you doing the same to them. Seems you are just forever misunderstood.

 

[HappyJoy]

Don't make it a practice of ever having the moral authority in any subject then.

when did morals come into it???
salalmi and iran are terrorist that want & do kill americans,,,I dont see a moral problem with killing them first,,,

I know, you guys think morality is a weakness unless you're clumsily using it to club others with.

you will have to explain that one a little better,,,

Abortion and basically any argument where you guys throw religion into it.

who is "you guys"???

as far as this discussion goes, its the iranians that are using religion and trying to kill us and anyone that disagrees with their religion,,

all we are doing is killing them first,,morals are irrelevant,,,itrs called self preservation.,,,

You're right, our fundies have taken a page from their fundies.

And no, we aren't just killing them first. Iran has been on a fucked up journey ever since we overthrew their democratically elected leader in favor of the Shaw...who might I add had many Iranians killed.

Anyway, like I said. You guys can't play the moral upperhand.

 

[Leo123]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

Uh........I already knew this on the same night it was happening. Where do you get your news?

 

[CWayne]

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

In fact, is is making a difference.

 

[CWayne]

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

Outperform the rest of the world.

 

[Nostra]

your OP says you wanted them to lie to us and say they were on their way to blow up our embassy,,,

It does? Can you point out where it says that? here I’ll even paste it for you. Liar
——-
Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

"simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

this is a lie and you wanted them to post it,,,

It’s not a lie dumb ass it’s an example of a simple statement that they could have been made. That’s why there’s quotes around it... Learn how to read

Um, quotation marks are used when actually quoting someone..............not when making shit up, Schifferbrains Jr.

your OP says you wanted them to lie to us and say they were on their way to blow up our embassy,,,

It does? Can you point out where it says that? here I’ll even paste it for you. Liar
——-
Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

"simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

this is a lie and you wanted them to post it,,,

It’s not a lie dumb ass it’s an example of a simple statement that they could have been made. That’s why there’s quotes around it... Learn how to read

Um, quotation marks are used when actually quoting someone..............not when making shit up, Schifferbrains Jr.

Not when prefaced with a “such as” statement... then they became “finger quotes” to show the “example”. This is elementary stuff. You really don’t understand?

You didn’t preface it with “such as”, liar.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

He likes to string out the Democrats for a time so they say stupid stuff before the explanation is given.

Works great.

No he doesn't. He just makes shit up to try to cover his ass when the truth starts to come out.
And you guys eat his shit like it's chocolate fudge ice cream.

 

[Nostra]

your OP says you wanted them to lie to us and say they were on their way to blow up our embassy,,,

It does? Can you point out where it says that? here I’ll even paste it for you. Liar
——-
Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

"simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

this is a lie and you wanted them to post it,,,

It’s not a lie dumb ass it’s an example of a simple statement that they could have made. That’s why there’s quotes around it... Learn how to read. I don’t have the intel so I obviously can’t post the real thing. I’m peaking shit together because they don’t know how to message.

but its a false statement,,and know how butthurt you get its best if they stick to the truth,,,

the real thing was in your first paragraph,,,

You get confused really easily. Maybe you shouldn’t read my stuff anymore. It’s getting very boring having to explain everything over and over again. I’d rather talk to people who understand what I’m saying and can progress the subject

Perhaps you should try making a coherent post,

 

[CWayne]

it can stop anytime,,,all they have to do is stop being the top supporters of terrorism in the world,,

We have armed more than our share of terrorists.

killed quite a few too.

ain't no one really innocent; no matter how much you try and pretend your causes are such and no one elses ever could be.

Don't make it a practice of ever having the moral authority in any subject then.

when did morals come into it???
salalmi and iran are terrorist that want & do kill americans,,,I dont see a moral problem with killing them first,,,

I know, you guys think morality is a weakness unless you're clumsily using it to club others with.

Not really. The problem is you side with immoral people but think you're superior.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

So the general was going to blow it up by himself?

 

[HappyJoy]

We have armed more than our share of terrorists.

killed quite a few too.

ain't no one really innocent; no matter how much you try and pretend your causes are such and no one elses ever could be.

Don't make it a practice of ever having the moral authority in any subject then.

when did morals come into it???
salalmi and iran are terrorist that want & do kill americans,,,I dont see a moral problem with killing them first,,,

I know, you guys think morality is a weakness unless you're clumsily using it to club others with.

Not really. The problem is you side with immoral people but think you're superior.

Neat, kid. Come back with some substance when you get some.

 

[CWayne]

killed quite a few too.

ain't no one really innocent; no matter how much you try and pretend your causes are such and no one elses ever could be.

Don't make it a practice of ever having the moral authority in any subject then.

when did morals come into it???
salalmi and iran are terrorist that want & do kill americans,,,I dont see a moral problem with killing them first,,,

I know, you guys think morality is a weakness unless you're clumsily using it to club others with.

Not really. The problem is you side with immoral people but think you're superior.

Neat, kid. Come back with some substance when you get some.

I have. Your problem that you don't wish to believe it.

The truth is, you have no moral ground to stand on.

No, go ask mommy whats for dinner.

 

[Siete]

The only imminent threat was Trump running out of time without killing a raghead like obama did.

 

[progressive hunter]

when did morals come into it???
salalmi and iran are terrorist that want & do kill americans,,,I dont see a moral problem with killing them first,,,

I know, you guys think morality is a weakness unless you're clumsily using it to club others with.

you will have to explain that one a little better,,,

Abortion and basically any argument where you guys throw religion into it.

who is "you guys"???

as far as this discussion goes, its the iranians that are using religion and trying to kill us and anyone that disagrees with their religion,,

all we are doing is killing them first,,morals are irrelevant,,,itrs called self preservation.,,,

You're right, our fundies have taken a page from their fundies.

And no, we aren't just killing them first. Iran has been on a fucked up journey ever since we overthrew their democratically elected leader in favor of the Shaw...who might I add had many Iranians killed.

Anyway, like I said. You guys can't play the moral upperhand.

"you guys"???
you mean those of us that dont mind that one of the biggest terrorist in history is dead,,,then yeah I'm one of them

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Ok, Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

They didn't know the Democrats were all gonna poop their pants asap. It just never occurred to them.

What a bunch of mother loving piss pants cowards... I would love to see the draft come back....it would be fun to watch.

JO

Your hero dodged the draft and now he gets to tell real heroes that they must go to battle.

Fuck off.

Your hero is a menopausal woman. You fuck off, Mrs. Doubtfire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're mom probably was/is too. Glad you think so highly of her. Nice broadbrush. Why not just find a Vietnam veteran who was captured and tell them all POWs suck while you're at it. Oh...sorry, that's already been done.

You a fan of hilly? Why are your panties in a bunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[progressive hunter]

Trump said four embassies were being targeted by Soleimani…

 

[pknopp]

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

In fact, is is making a difference.

We will note that you were unable to explain how.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

so murderer trump said that so it MUST be true.comedy gold.

I agree with this, we all know the CIA lies. Look at the Steele Dossier.

How do we know the CIA telling Trump that Soleimani was going to attack the embassy wasn’t just a fucking lie like the Steele Dossier was?

Hopefully it wasn’t a Brennan asslicker like Eric Ciaramella, who is also a CIA liar.

We also all know Trump lies.

Are you contending Trump is the source of the intel? He is a CIA operative who discovered the actionable intelligence, but he lied about it?

I'm contending no one has seen the supposed intel.

President Trump does not lie to the American people. And his Constitutional Oath of office doesn't charge him with pandering to threats from Nancy Pelosi the Commie. It charges him with the protection of the American people, and he did just that. Nancy Pelosi's nose is way out of joint, because he wasn't supposed to be so honest and trustworthy, so her lies don't stick to him.

Tough bananas, Traitor Pelosi.

President Trump does not lie to the American people.

.............