Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[Dr Grump]

No fan of Trump. Or Iran for that matter. But this is kinda funny.

 

[Slade3200]

obama reached out to several top officials in congress before the Osama Bin Laden raid. I never said POTUS needed approval by congress but with stakes this high it’s smart to coordinate with congress and our allies

OBL was a static target, Soleimani was on the move. Two different scenarios.

.

Perhaps... but we don’t know that there wasn’t time to consult and I havent heard them say that they didn’t have time to reach out. They said there was an imminent attack and now they seem to be walking that back.

let’s be honest trumps has zero interest in consulting with Dems about anything

Perhaps? Had he gone into the crowded airport, he could have been lost in the crowd. They verified him and his party getting into two cars and had minutes to take the shot and limit collateral damage. To my knowledge only the people in those two cars were killed or injured. There are too many variables in a situation like that to make the decision by committee. And considering the present political climate, I don't think the commies in congress could be trusted not to leak the info. You only need look at what smuckey schumer said today without any facts. Trump can do nothing right according to them.

.

You think the time from identifying Soleimani to taking the shot was minutes? Did I read that correctly? How do you know they didn’t know days in advance that Soleimani was going to be on that flight? They had time to brief the prez and prepare the strike... I said perhaps because yes it could have been a quick last minute thing. They said there was an imminent attack in progress that killing Soleimani prevented, if that’s true then the strike was legit. This is why I wrote the OP, they should communicate the intel about the attack and legitimize the kill. Pompeo has been questioned about the attack and he can’t give a straight answer. I watched 3 interviews with him and he dodged answers about it.

They may have know he was moving, they couldn't however predict exactly how it would go once he landed. They prepared if the opportunity presented itself, it did, and they only had minutes before he disappeared into more populated areas. And I'll ask again, do you think he was there just to have tea with the commander of the folks that took over part of our embassy? Or do you think he was likely there to discuss the next step?

.

neither of us knows why he was there, no use guessing. If he was a target to take out then that again is something that should have been discussed with our congress and allies as it has large repercussions... it an irresponsible “quick decision” UNLESS there was an imminent threat.

 

[Slade3200]

Well let me ask... what do you think of Trumps North Korea agenda?

He isn't doing any worse than other presidents. At least he isn't giving away the store the way some did, hoping for a change in direction.

.

Right but you know Trumps position don’t you? He wants them to denuke in exchange for lifting sanctions and entering the world markets with trade deals. That means money.
I even think he tweeted about the riches they would obtain. Isn’t it ironic to see that negotiation happening on one side and then all the attacks about the money Iran got during the deal with Obam? You have to see the irony, yes?

Like I said, Trump isn't giving away the store without a provable change, just sticks, no carrots. maobama took a different approach with Iran.

.

Come on Tex I know you're a smart guy.. you see the irony don’t you? Just take the political hat off for a minute. Trump is promising Kim riches and praising him nonstop in an attempt to make a deal. You know if a deal was stuck the partisan Dems will attack it with the exact same talking points as you are using against Obama and you will defend it with the same points that they use to defend the Iran deal.

Telling him what could be is part of the carrots, so is the praise. He hasn't lifted any of the sanctions and I don't think he will. Also the riches Trump was talking about would come from foreign investments, not from the US directly.

.

Yet with Iran making money from lifted sanctions it’s “funding terrorist” you see how warped the spin is?!

And of course trump would lift sanctions if NK agreed to denuke. That’s the deal trump is trying to make. And of course the partisan Dems would say we can’t trust them and it’s a bad deal and the record skips but from the opposite side. You know it’s true

 

[ColonelAngus]

No fan of Trump. Or Iran for that matter. But this is kinda funny.

Love it.

 

[Slade3200]

i see you ignoring the areas of compliance to point at the areas of conflict. I get why you’re doing that but you’re not acknowledging the whole picture

No I'm not, I've already stated the the holes in the inspection regime made it impossible to objectively verify compliance. We only saw what they agreed to show us.

.

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

What should the response have been to the attack on our embassy? Specifically, lay out your response.

i wouldn’t pretend to be in the loop enough to be able to develop a response. If I’m spitballing I’d work with the Iraq government and military to break it up. If I wanted to send a message id take out a headquarters, military base or funding source for those responsible

So you really shouldn’t be critical of Trumps response, because you don’t know the details he knew.

At least you post an honest response.

im critical of the lacking information being provided. As I’ve said several times. If there was an imminent threat that we avoided by taking out Soleimani then it was a good move. Kudos to Trump. Explain The threat to the world so resistance has nothing to stand on. If not then we have problems

 

[ColonelAngus]

No I'm not, I've already stated the the holes in the inspection regime made it impossible to objectively verify compliance. We only saw what they agreed to show us.

.

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

What should the response have been to the attack on our embassy? Specifically, lay out your response.

i wouldn’t pretend to be in the loop enough to be able to develop a response. If I’m spitballing I’d work with the Iraq government and military to break it up. If I wanted to send a message id take out a headquarters, military base or funding source for those responsible

So you really shouldn’t be critical of Trumps response, because you don’t know the details he knew.

At least you post an honest response.

im critical of the lacking information being provided. As I’ve said several times. If there was an imminent threat that we avoided by taking out Soleimani then it was a good move. Kudos to Trump. Explain The threat to the world so resistance has nothing to stand on. If not then we have problems

That terrorist POS should have been taken out a long time ago. However, I am an isolationist, so I am somewhat torn.

There must be repercussions for attacking our embassy.

 

[OKTexas]

"when the leader of Hezbollah sounds more reasonable than the President Of The United States, there's something wrong"

.

around 10 minutes into the video!

Wrong, I started at 9:42 and watched for almost 7 minutes, no mention of the leader of Hezbollah. Care to try again, watching ignorant children isn't my idea of fun.

.

 

[Slade3200]

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

What should the response have been to the attack on our embassy? Specifically, lay out your response.

i wouldn’t pretend to be in the loop enough to be able to develop a response. If I’m spitballing I’d work with the Iraq government and military to break it up. If I wanted to send a message id take out a headquarters, military base or funding source for those responsible

So you really shouldn’t be critical of Trumps response, because you don’t know the details he knew.

At least you post an honest response.

im critical of the lacking information being provided. As I’ve said several times. If there was an imminent threat that we avoided by taking out Soleimani then it was a good move. Kudos to Trump. Explain The threat to the world so resistance has nothing to stand on. If not then we have problems

That terrorist POS should have been taken out a long time ago. However, I am an isolationist, so I am somewhat torn.

There must be repercussions for attacking our embassy.

agreed but there are so many details that need to be considered. Like who was responsible and what the appropriate level of response is and how it effects our allies and troops and foreign agenda etc

 

[ColonelAngus]

What should the response have been to the attack on our embassy? Specifically, lay out your response.

i wouldn’t pretend to be in the loop enough to be able to develop a response. If I’m spitballing I’d work with the Iraq government and military to break it up. If I wanted to send a message id take out a headquarters, military base or funding source for those responsible

So you really shouldn’t be critical of Trumps response, because you don’t know the details he knew.

At least you post an honest response.

im critical of the lacking information being provided. As I’ve said several times. If there was an imminent threat that we avoided by taking out Soleimani then it was a good move. Kudos to Trump. Explain The threat to the world so resistance has nothing to stand on. If not then we have problems

That terrorist POS should have been taken out a long time ago. However, I am an isolationist, so I am somewhat torn.

There must be repercussions for attacking our embassy.

agreed but there are so many details that need to be considered. Like who was responsible and what the appropriate level of response is and how it effects our allies and troops and foreign agenda etc

It was bold to kill one of their top generals, but the guy was a scumbag.

I have a 19 YO son who is not in college, he has his own e-commerce business and the last thing I want is a full scale war with a draft. Don’t think it will happen, but international relations are a touchy business.

I wonder if the Iranian citizens are critical of their government for their surrogate attack on our Iraq embassy.

 

[OKTexas]

OBL was a static target, Soleimani was on the move. Two different scenarios.

.

Perhaps... but we don’t know that there wasn’t time to consult and I havent heard them say that they didn’t have time to reach out. They said there was an imminent attack and now they seem to be walking that back.

let’s be honest trumps has zero interest in consulting with Dems about anything

Perhaps? Had he gone into the crowded airport, he could have been lost in the crowd. They verified him and his party getting into two cars and had minutes to take the shot and limit collateral damage. To my knowledge only the people in those two cars were killed or injured. There are too many variables in a situation like that to make the decision by committee. And considering the present political climate, I don't think the commies in congress could be trusted not to leak the info. You only need look at what smuckey schumer said today without any facts. Trump can do nothing right according to them.

.

You think the time from identifying Soleimani to taking the shot was minutes? Did I read that correctly? How do you know they didn’t know days in advance that Soleimani was going to be on that flight? They had time to brief the prez and prepare the strike... I said perhaps because yes it could have been a quick last minute thing. They said there was an imminent attack in progress that killing Soleimani prevented, if that’s true then the strike was legit. This is why I wrote the OP, they should communicate the intel about the attack and legitimize the kill. Pompeo has been questioned about the attack and he can’t give a straight answer. I watched 3 interviews with him and he dodged answers about it.

They may have know he was moving, they couldn't however predict exactly how it would go once he landed. They prepared if the opportunity presented itself, it did, and they only had minutes before he disappeared into more populated areas. And I'll ask again, do you think he was there just to have tea with the commander of the folks that took over part of our embassy? Or do you think he was likely there to discuss the next step?

.

neither of us knows why he was there, no use guessing. If he was a target to take out then that again is something that should have been discussed with our congress and allies as it has large repercussions... it an irresponsible “quick decision” UNLESS there was an imminent threat.

OH BULLSHIT!!!! He was there to do what he's always been doing, plotting against America. You seem to be ignoring who he was with when he was killed. I'm done pointing out the obvious. You kids have fun.

.

 

[Slade3200]

i wouldn’t pretend to be in the loop enough to be able to develop a response. If I’m spitballing I’d work with the Iraq government and military to break it up. If I wanted to send a message id take out a headquarters, military base or funding source for those responsible

So you really shouldn’t be critical of Trumps response, because you don’t know the details he knew.

At least you post an honest response.

im critical of the lacking information being provided. As I’ve said several times. If there was an imminent threat that we avoided by taking out Soleimani then it was a good move. Kudos to Trump. Explain The threat to the world so resistance has nothing to stand on. If not then we have problems

That terrorist POS should have been taken out a long time ago. However, I am an isolationist, so I am somewhat torn.

There must be repercussions for attacking our embassy.

agreed but there are so many details that need to be considered. Like who was responsible and what the appropriate level of response is and how it effects our allies and troops and foreign agenda etc

It was bold to kill one of their top generals, but the guy was a scumbag.

I have a 19 YO son who is not in college, he has his own e-commerce business and the last thing I want is a full scale war with a draft. Don’t think it will happen, but international relations are a touchy business.

I wonder if the Iranian citizens are critical of their government for their surrogate attack on our Iraq embassy.

I get that the guy was a scumbag from how we know him, but have you seen the funerals going on? There’s a sea of people who saw this guy as their great defender who battled and beat ISIS. I’m sure any sympathy for the embassy attack was long gone after we killed this guy. You see the night and day difference in media coverage from our free country??? I’m sure you don’t trust much of it... well imagine what media the people over there are being fed to shape their reality. I doubt they have the same access it info as we do and the odds of it to be fair and accurate ain’t good. Think about it.
This whole thing is a mess. The least we can do is release the intel we had about the imminent attack so we can show that we were protecting ourselves from this guy. If that story is bunk then we have problems.

 

[mudwhistle]

The U.S. is full of anti-Iranian shitheads who are an existential threat to Iran. Of course you would defend Iran, where warranted, at least try to understand what they are doing, and why, because it is the reasonable thing to do. I think you could use some reading on Iran (start here, for instance) to add a bit of color and nuance to your picture - because the black-and-white, us. v. them nonsense isn't really helpful.

I would guess you've followed recent reporting in the "imminent attacks" that were "prevented", and how these lies are falling apart already.

Nothing is black and white, especially in the Middle East. But any country whose leaders chant death to America have some serious growing up to do. Could you imagine if our congress chanted something like that?! As for the other implications of sponsoring terrorist groups, all I have to go off is media reports so I’m not going to pretend to know the truth with all that... but it doesn’t sound good

I do agree that the explanation if the “imminent attack” has been piss poor by our officials. They can’t give a straight answer, so yeah, that smells fishy.

Well, it got those assholes out of our embassy, so mission accomplished

oh was that the mission?! Ok got it.

it may also get escalated attacks and our troops kicked out of Iraq where we were fighting ISIS. But let’s buzz off just as Iran wants so they can step in. Brilliant move.

I bet those 4000 troops were just waiting for a Mid East vacation that they now get to take. Awesome!

Iran has already taken control of most of the Iraqi government. That's why ISIS was created. Sunnies got tired of being pushed around and murdered. Course under Saddam Sunnis were doing it to the Shiits for 25 years.

So we leave Iraq and the cycle starts all over.

Muslims only understand fighting and oppression. They either have Dictators or Holy Leaders, which is worse. Secular or a Theocratic government. Freedom is for infidels.

correct. And it is looking like this kill could be getting our troops kicked out of Iraq... leaving it open for Iran. How do you that’s going to play out?

If Iran thinks they can push Trump out of Iraq I think they're in for a hard lesson......the same lesson the Democrats have had to learn.

 

[Nostra]

bush/Obama fuck up--------inherited by Trump who is in a struggle
for damage control ------I am not sure he is up to it

Since he is doing the opposite of damage control...I would agree.

So, killing the leader of a terrorist group is the "opposite of damage control" in your world?

 

[mudwhistle]

Nothing is black and white, especially in the Middle East. But any country whose leaders chant death to America have some serious growing up to do. Could you imagine if our congress chanted something like that?! As for the other implications of sponsoring terrorist groups, all I have to go off is media reports so I’m not going to pretend to know the truth with all that... but it doesn’t sound good

I do agree that the explanation if the “imminent attack” has been piss poor by our officials. They can’t give a straight answer, so yeah, that smells fishy.

Well, it got those assholes out of our embassy, so mission accomplished

oh was that the mission?! Ok got it.

it may also get escalated attacks and our troops kicked out of Iraq where we were fighting ISIS. But let’s buzz off just as Iran wants so they can step in. Brilliant move.

I bet those 4000 troops were just waiting for a Mid East vacation that they now get to take. Awesome!

Iran has already taken control of most of the Iraqi government. That's why ISIS was created. Sunnies got tired of being pushed around and murdered. Course under Saddam Sunnis were doing it to the Shiits for 25 years.

So we leave Iraq and the cycle starts all over.

Muslims only understand fighting and oppression. They either have Dictators or Holy Leaders, which is worse. Secular or a Theocratic government. Freedom is for infidels.

correct. And it is looking like this kill could be getting our troops kicked out of Iraq... leaving it open for Iran. How do you that’s going to play out?

it's going to be a Shiite shit hole and base of operations for Iran-----

Or Trump will push their asses out.
They keep screwing with him there's no telling what he'll do next.

 

[Nostra]

Iran has yet to express the same desire.

.

well they had complied with the agreement for years until recently. So yes that’s an expression of desire to cooperate. It’s all gone to shit now

Not stemming their terrorist activities tells a completely different story. Of course the mullahs have never been shy about talking form both sides of the mouth.

.

i see you ignoring the areas of compliance to point at the areas of conflict. I get why you’re doing that but you’re not acknowledging the whole picture

No I'm not, I've already stated the the holes in the inspection regime made it impossible to objectively verify compliance. We only saw what they agreed to show us.

.

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

How do you know they were complying when the Mulluhs told Obama their military sites were off limits to inspections?

You are a moron.

 

[Slade3200]

Nothing is black and white, especially in the Middle East. But any country whose leaders chant death to America have some serious growing up to do. Could you imagine if our congress chanted something like that?! As for the other implications of sponsoring terrorist groups, all I have to go off is media reports so I’m not going to pretend to know the truth with all that... but it doesn’t sound good

I do agree that the explanation if the “imminent attack” has been piss poor by our officials. They can’t give a straight answer, so yeah, that smells fishy.

Well, it got those assholes out of our embassy, so mission accomplished

oh was that the mission?! Ok got it.

it may also get escalated attacks and our troops kicked out of Iraq where we were fighting ISIS. But let’s buzz off just as Iran wants so they can step in. Brilliant move.

I bet those 4000 troops were just waiting for a Mid East vacation that they now get to take. Awesome!

Iran has already taken control of most of the Iraqi government. That's why ISIS was created. Sunnies got tired of being pushed around and murdered. Course under Saddam Sunnis were doing it to the Shiits for 25 years.

So we leave Iraq and the cycle starts all over.

Muslims only understand fighting and oppression. They either have Dictators or Holy Leaders, which is worse. Secular or a Theocratic government. Freedom is for infidels.

correct. And it is looking like this kill could be getting our troops kicked out of Iraq... leaving it open for Iran. How do you that’s going to play out?

If Iran thinks they can push Trump out of Iraq I think they're in for a hard lesson......the same lesson the Democrats have had to learn.

if you follow the news you’d see it was Iraq deliberating whether to kick us out. Not Iran

 

[Slade3200]

well they had complied with the agreement for years until recently. So yes that’s an expression of desire to cooperate. It’s all gone to shit now

Not stemming their terrorist activities tells a completely different story. Of course the mullahs have never been shy about talking form both sides of the mouth.

.

i see you ignoring the areas of compliance to point at the areas of conflict. I get why you’re doing that but you’re not acknowledging the whole picture

No I'm not, I've already stated the the holes in the inspection regime made it impossible to objectively verify compliance. We only saw what they agreed to show us.

.

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

How do you know they were complying when the Mulluhs told Obama their military sites were off limits to inspections?

You are a moron.

Because trumps intel people reported that they were compliant. And if any admin was motivated to be critical it’s that one.

 

[Nostra]

Not stemming their terrorist activities tells a completely different story. Of course the mullahs have never been shy about talking form both sides of the mouth.

.

i see you ignoring the areas of compliance to point at the areas of conflict. I get why you’re doing that but you’re not acknowledging the whole picture

No I'm not, I've already stated the the holes in the inspection regime made it impossible to objectively verify compliance. We only saw what they agreed to show us.

.

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

What should the response have been to the attack on our embassy? Specifically, lay out your response.

i wouldn’t pretend to be in the loop enough to be able to develop a response. If I’m spitballing I’d work with the Iraq government and military to break it up. If I wanted to send a message id take out a headquarters, military base or funding source for those responsible

So you want WWIII

 

[Olde Europe]

If there was an imminent threat that we avoided by taking out Soleimani then it was a good move.

Explain how that is even possible under any circumstances, please. Take your time, pay attention to the meaning of "imminent", and consider how taking out a U.S. general would halt an "imminent" attack.

 

[Nostra]

Not stemming their terrorist activities tells a completely different story. Of course the mullahs have never been shy about talking form both sides of the mouth.

.

i see you ignoring the areas of compliance to point at the areas of conflict. I get why you’re doing that but you’re not acknowledging the whole picture

No I'm not, I've already stated the the holes in the inspection regime made it impossible to objectively verify compliance. We only saw what they agreed to show us.

.

yes, what’s wrong with that? That’s what agreements are about m. They agree to show us what their are cooking and limit the nuke dev and in exchange we lift sanctions. That was the deal. They were complying, now they aren’t

How do you know they were complying when the Mulluhs told Obama their military sites were off limits to inspections?

You are a moron.

Because trumps intel people reported that they were compliant. And if any admin was motivated to be critical it’s that one.

Link?