Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[2aguy]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

Moron, we are not on the brink of war.....Iran doesn't want to have it's only source of revenue, oil, destroyed by American drones...you freaking doofus.

At most we will have a few terrorist attacks...that's it....you moron. Then we can kill more of their terrorists....

Moron......that asshat was the leader of the quds forces...the guys training islamic terrorists in how to make the IEDs that have killed and maimed American citizens fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and they used the obama money to pay and equip those same terrorists...under this guys leadership.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well then, by all means, let's stir ourselves up into a mass panic.

Or we can just send your kids to die, so we can rest easy. Sound good?

Okay, Boomer

Hmm, you shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean. Like "Boomer", or "mass panic", for instance. Could you point me to a link of this mass panic, so we know you are not just being a hyperbolic moron, accusing others of being a hyperbolic morons? Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was not an assassination. It was the termination of a terrorist threat.

Hmm, no, see, that's where you are going to hit the brick wall. Not even our own courts would go along with this definition for the top Iranian general, much less the international courts.

 

[The Original Tree]

Irrefutable Truth!

I don't seem to remember any Dems asking for proof of threat while Obama was exercising 2800 drone strikes against terrorists ( and that was in only two countries - there were many more)

 

[Ken Mac]

It was not an assassination. It was the termination of a terrorist threat.

Hmm, no, see, that's where you are going to hit the brick wall. Not even our own courts would go along with this definition for the top Iranian general, much less the international courts.

He was on the list of known terrorists since 2005. We have a resolution on the handling of terrorists, especially if they are an imminent threat. Or we go with your ideas and we can say Obama assassinated over 3000 people. Your pick

 

[Polishprince]

I think you are being very presumptuous. Do you have any sort of evidence that the strike was outside of protocol? Since we've been killing enemy soldiers in Iraq for over a quarter century, including dozens, if not hundreds, in the vicinity of the Baghdad airport, the strike that killed those enemy commanders seems like SOP to me. There was no break from protocol.

Also, calling it an "assassination" is a bit of a stretch.

how was it not an assassination?! It was a targeted drone strike while he was in a car leaving Baghdad’s airport.

So by your definition, Obama assasinated over 3,000 people. Wow. That would be war criminal like, wouldn't it?

Yes he did... I never said the actions were criminal.

Assassinations are criminal.

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

You need to find another word, I would think.

And this assassination may have been illegal.

Maybe Vice President Biden needs to point this "fact" out, and apologize to the Ayatollah then?

 

[The Original Tree]

It’s “morning” every day in America and Mourning every day in Iran!

The administration doesn't need to show evidence to the general public. It is within the resolution on terrorists scope.

I disagree. In this situation I think we owe it to our people and our allies to explain why we did what we did and why it was worth risking war

I'm sure the top brass of our allies will be shown some evidence. That's another thing the administration doesn't have to share with the public.

At the very least top brass needs to see the intel. Why don’t you think it important for the public to see it? Especially the people of Iran who view this General as a hero?

You act as though all the people of Iran view the asshole as a hero. The majority of them hated him. You need to read up some more on this topic.

I saw three days of morning, parades in the street, grown men crying, his daughter pleading for retribution and Iran’s leaders vowing for it. There is plenty out there showing how a large portion of their people are reacting

 

[The Original Tree]

You aren’t allowed to discuss stupid opinions but you’ve made an art of it.

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

I'd agree that I would like to know.

I'd agree that it might make some people here and abroad a bit more confortable with it.

As long as it doesnt endanger sources, other ops or give up intel, maybe I'd release something.

But here's also why I might not. No matter what is released, it hasn't happened, so it will be criticized as insufficient. Revealing what we know also gives clues as to what we are thinking and may be planning and where we got the info.

We know plenty about this guy that he already did to justify this, IMO. We know he planned attacks and is responsible for American deaths. Given that this was his job it is a fairly safe bet that he was up to more of the same as sanctions are effecting them, as a means to respond to those sanctions and discourage more.

Active military enemy is dead. A message has been delivered to Iran to cut the crap. I don't need more. If a few things can be released, fine, but I don't see a real need to do so.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

'If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained'

Says who? You?

Yes, this is a discussion forum, I’m allowed to express my opinion am I not?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Relativistic. Benghazi was a different show.

Right, that was Republicans trying to smear a potential candidate.

The Obama admin fucked up at Bengazi. There is no valid argument that they did not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He was on the list of known terrorists since 2005.

What list? Link.

I don't disagree that Obama conducted assassinations that may have been illegal for the same reasons. So your Obama Tourettes Syndrome isn't going to win you any points, here.

 

[The Original Tree]

Only fairies lick Ayatollah Assahollah

how was it not an assassination?! It was a targeted drone strike while he was in a car leaving Baghdad’s airport.

So by your definition, Obama assasinated over 3,000 people. Wow. That would be war criminal like, wouldn't it?

Yes he did... I never said the actions were criminal.

Assassinations are criminal.

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

You need to find another word, I would think.

And this assassination may have been illegal.

Maybe Vice President Biden needs to point this "fact" out, and apologize to the Ayatollah then?

 

[Fueri]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

I'd agree that I would like to know.

I'd agree that it might make some people here and abroad a bit more confortable with it.

As long as it doesnt endanger sources, other ops or give up intel, maybe I'd release something.

But here's also why I might not. No matter what is released, it hasn't happened, so it will be criticized as insufficient. Revealing what we know also gives clues as to what we are thinking and may be planning and where we got the info.

We know plenty about this guy that he already did to justify this, IMO. We know he planned attacks and is responsible for American deaths. Given that this was his job it is a fairly safe bet that he was up to more of the same as sanctions are effecting them, as a means to respond to those sanctions and discourage more.

Active military enemy is dead. A message has been delivered to Iran to cut the crap. I don't need more. If a few things can be released, fine, but I don't see a real need to do so.

The decision to take out a high profile target like Soleimani should be made by POTUS and Congress, too much is at stake as far as backlash. If there was an imminent threat then POTUS had the right to act. But that should be explained

If it can be without endangering, people, ops or ihtel, as indicated, I have no problem with it.

If not, then not. This was a bad guy, whose job was to plan ops. We've known it for a very long time.

I've got no issues with this any more than i did when Obama went and got Bin Laden.

Glad he's dead. Period.

 

[JWBooth]

He was on the list of known terrorists since 2005.

What list? Link.

I don't disagree that Obama conducted assassinations that may have been illegal for the same reasons. So your Obama Tourettes Syndrome isn't going to win you any points, here.

That list your government swears is out there

 

[The Original Tree]

No reason to do any of that. Besides that Adolph Schffler and Omar Scharif cannot be trusted with classified information.

Ilhan Omar as a Transgender Jihadist

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

No. This level of intel is not for public consumption. It is time we started to trust our intelligence agencies again. This is the kind of mistrust which is damaging to us as a nation, and it came about from the anti-Mueller campaign that seeks to "exonerate" the President, calling everything critical "fake news," whether it comes from our side or not.

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

Depends. Revealing it could compromise sources and means.

There are ways to protect those... we are talking about potential war with Iran here. The stakes are pretty high. Our provocation should be justified to the world.

If the world doesn't believe us, they can privately ask for "proof." Not everything in our government is for public consumption. That requires the majority of us to trust our government, though, and that trust has been severely eroded in the past three years due to a narcissistic clown in the leader's seat.

Under normal circumstances I’d agree but there is tremendous mistrust right now so trust needs to be earned. We are also talking about war with a country who feel like we unjustly assassinated their general. I think it a fair expectation to public justify why we took him out. The reasoning is that there was an imminent threat. That threat should be revealed

 

[The Original Tree]

So impeach 44?

He was on the list of known terrorists since 2005.

What list? Link.

I don't disagree that Obama conducted assassinations that may have been illegal for the same reasons. So your Obama Tourettes Syndrome isn't going to win you any points, here.

 

[Ken Mac]

He was on the list of known terrorists since 2005.

What list? Link.

I don't disagree that Obama conducted assassinations that may have been illegal for the same reasons. So your Obama Tourettes Syndrome isn't going to win you any points, here.

https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt

 

[Ken Mac]

He was on the list of known terrorists since 2005.

What list? Link.

I don't disagree that Obama conducted assassinations that may have been illegal for the same reasons. So your Obama Tourettes Syndrome isn't going to win you any points, here.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

Ok, I said 2005. This is 2007. I was wrong (on the year)

 

[Uncensored2008]

After watching the public reaction to Soleimani’s murder followed by vows of revenge by Iran, we are apparently on the brink of war. At this point it seems obvious that we need to go public with the intel we have showing the imminent attack that was being planned against Americans.

This intel should clearly show the world that Soleimani was a clear and present danger and we had no choice but to go outside of protocol and assassinate him. Do you agree? Thoughts?

I agree in general, and I think the world would accept solid evidence (except for those who won't accept anything for other reasons).

The problem is always this: Exposing critical intel may also expose the methodology we used to acquire it. So reporting it may be counter-productive, and leaving it out might not be persuasive. A Catch-22.

What I'd like to see is leaders from the opposing party being shown the intel, and then coming out in favor of what happened. Unfortunately, I really can't trust them to be honest (regardless of the party), so that might be a waste of time, too.

Maybe having another country come out in support after seeing the intel might work. It's a shame that it's so difficult to trust people in such critical times.
.

I agree, wouldn’t want to compromise sources and methods but the stakes are pretty damn high here and I see a country morning the loss of a highly respected general who we assassinated. They are vowing retribution which could very well lead to war. War involves not just our country but likely our allies so it is imperative to share our intel with our congress and our allies.

There are factions in Congress with which it would be unwise to share information. They cannot be trusted. That's a fact.

Europe ran to the arms of socialism almost as soon as the Wall came down. Our allies are changing seats.

And that faction is called the democrats.

 

[2aguy]

It was not an assassination. It was the termination of a terrorist threat.

Hmm, no, see, that's where you are going to hit the brick wall. Not even our own courts would go along with this definition for the top Iranian general, much less the international courts.

Moron....the iranian republican guard are designated terrorists.....the quds forces are designated terrorist forces......... this guy Trump killed was a designated terrorist in Iraq...you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Didn't know we were at the brink of war. Link?

Then pay fucking attention, because that is what it is when you assassinate the top commander of a foreign country's military.

because that is what it is when you assassinate the top commander of a foreign country's military.

The guy who has been waging war on our military in Iraq?