Iran Situation

[*bfine32*]

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy; but what are we saying was the reason Trump ordered this strike?

[Benton]

(01-13-2020, 07:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy; but what are we saying was the reason Trump ordered this strike?

I don't see where anyone has guessed that, outside of saying it wasn't for anything imminent.

[*bfine32*]

(01-13-2020, 08:05 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't see where anyone has guessed that, outside of saying it wasn't for anything imminent.

Yeah, I was just wonder what folk's theories were if he didn't do it because of intel of a threat. It's entertaining to hear. 

[Benton]

(01-13-2020, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I was just wonder what folk's theories were if he didn't do it because of intel of a threat. It's entertaining to hear. 

The last story I read on Reuters said the admin is calling it their new deterrent strategy. They're, according to the article, tossing the imminent threat angle out and just running with the idea that it's best to start blowing up officials of countries we don't like so that they'll do as we say.

[GMDino]

(01-13-2020, 07:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy; but what are we saying was the reason Trump ordered this strike?

(01-13-2020, 05:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let's not forget that according to the WSJ, whose editorial board is conservative and is one of Rupert Murdoch's shit stains on our world, Trump conducted this assassination at least in part for personal political gain.

Quote:Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.

[*bfine32*]

(01-13-2020, 11:56 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Thanks make sure you share it with Benton; as he was unaware anyone had guessed.

So he blew up dude to not get impeached? 

[BmorePat87]

The level of discourse shown by Republican leaders is similar to those of their supporters.

Doug Collins called the Democrats terrorist lovers and eventually apologized when called out. Trump retweets this:

The corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah's rescue.#NancyPelosiFakeNews pic.twitter.com/a0ksPHeXCy

— داون آندر (@D0wn_Under) January 13, 2020

and then says this

The Democrats and the Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years. Anything I do, whether it’s the economy, military, or anything else, will be scorned by the Rafical Left, Do Nothing Democrats!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020

When they have nothing to add or new information contradicts what they defended previously, they instead rely on throwing out things like calling people terrorist lovers or suggesting that people are canonizing Soleimani as a means of distracting from substance. This is the level of discourse that they've normalized.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-authorized-soleimani-s-killing-7-months-ago-conditions-n1113271

It's now being reported that Trump put out his assassination months ago as a response to any Iranian action that resulted in the death of an American. This would of course continue to destroy the imminent threat narrative.

[Benton]

(01-14-2020, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks make sure you share it with Benton; as he was unaware anyone had guessed.

So he blew up dude to not get impeached? 

I saw Matt share a wsj opinion. I didn't see Matt guess.

But, sure.

[Dill]

(01-14-2020, 01:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-authorized-soleimani-s-killing-7-months-ago-conditions-n1113271

It's now being reported that Trump put out his assassination months ago as a response to any Iranian action that resulted in the death of an American. This would of course continue to destroy the imminent threat narrative.

Embassies were put on alert after the rioting before the Baghdad embassy, but outside of that embassy, none were "hardened" in expectation of an immanent strike.

Is there any evidence that legality issues raised by the Solameini strike are hurting Trump with the base?  (Hannity seems to think Dem concern for international law just another outburst of Trump derangement syndrome. You kill a "terrorist leader" whenever you get the chance. Media and "the Left" can't figure it out.)

If not, then it seems that only factors external to US politics/law could reign in lawless behavior--e.g., fear of war with Iran.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2020, 02:08 AM)Benton Wrote: I saw Matt share a wsj opinion. I didn't see Matt guess.

But, sure.

Not even opinion; it was their reporting on the events that occurred. Now, they didn't explain it in the terms I did, but I made the logical inference. Though it should be noted that the WSJ mentioned the impeachment, not myself. I just stuck with the broader "personal political gain." You know this stuff, though.

Personally, I have no idea what was going on in Trump's head when he gave the order. So much reporting has shown that the administration is shifting in their explanations and isn't very forthcoming on details. That combined with Trump's typical unpredictability and self-serving approach to public service, makes anything possible. My main questions have been surrounding the criminality of the act.

[GMDino]

The inability for any Trump supporter to say he did something wrong would be funny if he wasn't out there breaking laws and his cult is happy with it.

[jj22]

It's obvious now based off of Administration statements there was no imminent threat. I don't think that's an argument any longer.

The only argument now is are our interest overseas safer now then they were before the killing? That's to be debated.

Trump lied about the reasons behind the strike, but we all should have sensed that. I believed when it came to military action being taken on that level there was an adult in the room who understood the Constitution and International laws and so I supported. It's clear there is no adult in the room.

[*Nately120*]

(01-14-2020, 01:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The level of discourse shown by Republican leaders is similar to those of their supporters.

Doug Collins called the Democrats terrorist lovers and eventually apologized when called out. Trump retweets this:

The corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah's rescue.#NancyPelosiFakeNews pic.twitter.com/a0ksPHeXCy

— داون آندر (@D0wn_Under) January 13, 2020

and then says this

The Democrats and the Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years. Anything I do, whether it’s the economy, military, or anything else, will be scorned by the Rafical Left, Do Nothing Democrats!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020

When they have nothing to add or new information contradicts what they defended previously, they instead rely on throwing out things like calling people terrorist lovers or suggesting that people are canonizing Soleimani as a means of distracting from substance. This is the level of discourse that they've normalized.

Hmm, so the neo-con spin machine has gone from "democrats will leave us vulnerable to terrorists" to "democrats are terrorists and love terrorists."  What's next?  Where can we go from here?

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2020, 06:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, so the neo-con spin machine has gone from "democrats will leave us vulnerable to terrorists" to "democrats are terrorists and love terrorists."  What's next?  Where can we go from here?

They’re literally members of ISIS now. Pelosi will be accused of holding recruitment meetings on the floor.

[*bfine32*]

(01-14-2020, 02:08 AM)Benton Wrote: I saw Matt share a wsj opinion. I didn't see Matt guess.

But, sure.

Don't know why you're addressing me rather than Dino. He was the one that posted it as a response. 


WTS, it seems many are trying hard to show that there was no imminent threat. Trump said he has intel that led him to believe there was an imminent threat. If he truly didn't believe there was an imminent threat then why'd he make the call? 

[*Nately120*]

(01-14-2020, 06:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They’re literally members of ISIS now. Pelosi will be accused of holding recruitment meetings on the floor.

Actually, wasn't Obama going to make his good friend and terrorist, Bill Ayers, a member of his cabinet if he got elected?  I take it back, this is nothing new.

[Benton]

(01-14-2020, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't know why you're addressing me rather than Dino. He was the one that posted it as a response. 


WTS, it seems many are trying hard to show that there was no imminent threat. Trump said he has intel that led him to believe there was an imminent threat. If he truly didn't believe there was an imminent threat then why'd he make the call? 

To answer the question, nobody really knows because he and the administration keeping changing their story.

It started as an imminent threat.
Then it was retaliation.
Then it was that the guy would have done something eventually.
Then it was the new defense strategy of attacking people who could be threats.

So I don't think there's any way to know why he made the call since he's been dishonest about why he made the call. 

[hollodero]

(01-14-2020, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't know why you're addressing me rather than Dino. He was the one that posted it as a response. 


WTS, it seems many are trying hard to show that there was no imminent threat. Trump said he has intel that led him to believe there was an imminent threat. If he truly didn't believe there was an imminent threat then why'd he make the call? 

I believe he wants to be the tough guy that cannot possibly be impeached - and it also presents yet another opportunity to call democrats some rhetorical variation of being terrorist-loving, hate-blinded etc.

It can be something else, but this seems like the most likely and logical explanation. Trump accused Obama of thinking that way, which quite underlines his own thinking that way.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-14-2020, 03:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Is there any evidence that legality issues raised by the Solameini strike are hurting Trump with the base?

Real question, are there really legitimate legality issues?

Soleimani was listed by the US as a terrorist for almost a decade before Trump came into office. I have never heard anyone deny that he is responsible for hundreds of US military deaths and thousands of injured.

Sure we can debate on if it was wise/worth it to kill a foreign leader and that's a valid topic to debate. 

That said, at the end of the day he was a designated terrorist, leader of a designated terrorist organization (a labeling that spanned 3 different US Presidents) who was responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and injuring thousands. That seems pretty open and shut as far as legality goes. It doesn't matter if you're powerful in another country. If you're a non-US Citizen directly going to other countries to arm and train people to murder US troops, I can't possibly see how there's a legality issue.