President Trump Wins WWIII In A Day And A Half

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by oeb11

DPST's are all for giving Iran nukes to "balance the power" of the poor, oppressed mullahs in Iran.

See how long Israel puts up with that existential threat.

For decades U.S. Presidents have kept a leash on the Israels with the assistance of Congress in oversight on sales to Israel and mutual assistant agreements. Trump has taken off their gloves and they have a greenlight. The Israelis now have partners in the area they didn't have after the 67 War and all the way through the 90's and 2,000's until 2017 .... and 2020.

The "Trump-Effect" .... the folks over there know him .... and respect him. It reminds me of Bush II escorting Obaminable to meet the Africans! As the Loons over here fail each day in unseating Trump his stock goes up .... The Iranians aren't done .... but by December 2020 they will see the handwriting on the wall.....again!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by kehaar

The "aides" said killing the terrorist was the most extreme option, and they were surprised that he chose that option.

1) He didn't choose that option by himself. He has a group of people he trusts that he values advice(all leaders do).

2) Killing the terrorist was not the most extreme option. An amateur could come up with 10 options more extreme than that.

3) The characterization of "secret" information by the leftist fascist thugs who have insuated themselves in the national security apparatus and the federal law enforcement apparatus, has been historically false. After all, they said Flynn had sold the Trump administration to the Russians, had colluded with the Russians to win the elections, and had extorted the Ukrainians to investigate the a fella who, by his own admission had gotten an investigator who was looking into his son, fired. These accusations have all been demonstrated to be without substantiation. They all disclosed the internal communications of our national security apparatus.

The people who do this sort of thing, as well as the people who use this distorted "knowledge" in an attempt to remove a rightfully elected president are hate-filled fascist thugs.

Did the Times of Israel propagate the Flynn, Russian Conspiracy, and Ukrainian Conspiracy lies. Yep.

That's exactly what the articles I cited stated, and I believe you disputed the statements. Trump met with his advisers and chose the option he thought best at the time.

I believe what was stated was the option was the most extreme of the options presented to Trump.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who exactly is "we"? And who decides what is "sensibly"?

They certainly outsmarted Dumbass Obaminable and Kerry, et al!

Got billions of their dollars back from impounding by agreeing to a NO INSPECTION, NO TEETH FAKE MORATORIUM on their Missile based nuclear warhead program which expired just after those LOONS left office while sealing the fate of Israel and the Jews living there!

If a country wanted to dominate the region with blackmail and intimidation along with Eastern Europe they did a great job and certainly sensible. Thank God Congress didn't agree and making it a binding TREATY!!!! Now the chicken-shit LOONS want to blame Trump!

So you believe that the Iranian leadership has acted sensibly over the past many decades?

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I believe what was stated was the option was the most extreme of the options presented to Trump.

And accidentally or through ongoing pressure, as of today, it was still exactly the right choice to have been made.

Iran is in internal turmoil and given the history of Iranian protests, it was Soleimani who ruthlessly quelled previous protests.

We'll see if the new guy acts the same, but right now Iran is certainly weakened to our apparent benefit by "removing Soleimani from office".

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So you believe that the Iranian leadership has acted sensibly over the past many decades?

Is that what I said "knucklehead"? I'm beginning to comprehend a major deficiency with you: Reading Comprehension!

Let's try again!

They certainly outsmarted Dumbass Obaminable and Kerry, et al!

I made it blue and bigger to help you along!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

As for your use of the word "assassinate" it discloses your patent bias against the decision and Trump, primarily because it is a lie! This military exercise against a military target was not an "assassination" by any stretch of an imagination except for Loons like you who don't know the difference.

As for "leaks" and "Trump's" attitude ... just because YOU didn't hear them (YOU who thinks the strike was an "assassination") doesn't mean SHIT ... and you using the word "leak" also shows your bias ....against the decision and Trump! The use of the word "leak" implies that a real person said a real fact .... again demonstrating your patent bias against the decision and Trump.

Did you listen to Trump's entire interview from yesterday?

BTW: Where is your thread of outrage over this ASSASSINATION?

Here you go!
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/

assassinate[ uh-sas-uh-neyt ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR assassinate ON THESAURUS.COM

verb (used with object), as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing.
to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

I would say that the killing of Solmeini meets that description of "assassinate" perfectly. Want to see a perfect example of a "loon"? Look in the mirror.

Somehow information discussed in a private meeting was given to others. No one who was in the meeting disputes the information published in several sources was incorrect. To me the information was LEAKED.

And just to clear up another one of you incorrect implications -- at no time have I either defended or condemned the action taken by Trump.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is that what I said "knucklehead"? I'm beginning to comprehend a major deficiency with you: Reading Comprehension!

Let's try again!

I made it blue and bigger to help you along!

Here was your statement:

"Who exactly is "we"? And who decides what is "sensibly"?"

Ergo my question.

Kerry and Obama are irrelevant to my question.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And accidentally or through ongoing pressure, as of today, it was still exactly the right choice to have been made.

Iran is in internal turmoil and given the history of Iranian protests, it was Soleimani who ruthlessly quelled previous protests.

We'll see if the new guy acts the same, but right now Iran is certainly weakened to our apparent benefit by "removing Soleimani from office".

As I tried to explain to our resident know-it-all -- I have never said Trump's action was right or wrong.

As I asked in post #9 in this thread "Are we, for certain, any better off than we were before Soleimani was killed?" I did not cast judgement in any way on Trump's decision and I appreciate the answers of those that responded.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

assassinate[ uh-sas-uh-neyt ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR assassinate ON THESAURUS.COM

verb (used with object), as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing.
to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

I would say that the killing of Solmeini meets that description of "assassinate" perfectly.

I do differ on your interpretation of the definition.

It's the denotation of "treacherously" that gives "assassination" it's bite. I don't think it was done "treacherously".

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As I tried to explain to our resident know-it-all -- I have never said Trump's action was right or wrong.

As I asked in post #9 in this thread "Are we, for certain, any better off than we were before Soleimani was killed?" I did not cast judgement in any way on Trump's decision and I appreciate the answers of those that responded.

And we never know "for certain". But again by all accounts today it's pretty solid we are indeed better off.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I do differ on your interpretation of the definition.

It's the denotation of "treacherously" that gives "assassination" it's bite. I don't think it was done "treacherously".

And we never know "for certain". But again by all accounts today it's pretty solid we are indeed better off.

Thanks for the, as usual, civil response. Yes, the definitions of words can be tricky to interpret at times. I was not the first person to use the word "assassination" with reference to the killing of Soleimani.

"US officials have rejected the characterization of his killing as an assassination. That's hardly a surprise because assassinations have been illegal under US federal law since 1981. But people have still been assassinated, and the government has not always been considered in violation of the law. This is, in part, because US law does not define "assassinations" with precision, and there are other laws that administrations have used to justify their actions."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/middl...ntl/index.html

""It is a turning point!" This is how over the past 10 days many analysts described the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy chief of the pro-Iranian Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), on January 3 in Baghdad."


https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...094615099.html

"Experts disagree on how to characterize this killing. "I think the best definition would be either one of assassination or murder," Gary Solis, a retired Marine who taught on the laws of war at West Point, tells NPR. He says what happened is comparable to Iran killing a high-ranking U.S. military official with a bomb on U.S. soil."

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/04/79341...ilitary-leader

"Not everyone is convinced. “These killings cannot be distinguished from unlawful assassination,” Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told me.

If you believe targeted killings is a sanitized term for assassinations, which have become normalized in the drone-war era but are no less illegal, then targeting Soleimani is a war crime, especially since there’s no formal state of war between the United States and Iran. “Preemptive self-defense is never a legal justification for assassination,” O’Connell said. “Nothing is. The relevant law is the United Nations Charter, which defines self-defense as a right to respond to an actual and significant armed attack.”"


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ni-now/604441/

So let's just agree that I was not totally out of line by using the word "assassination" when referring to the killing of Soleimani.

And you are correct in saying that thus far we are indeed better off.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Thanks for the, as usual, civil response. Yes, the definitions of words can be tricky to interpret at times. I was not the first person to use the word "assassination" with reference to the killing of Soleimani.

"US officials have rejected the characterization of his killing as an assassination. That's hardly a surprise because assassinations have been illegal under US federal law since 1981. But people have still been assassinated, and the government has not always been considered in violation of the law. This is, in part, because US law does not define "assassinations" with precision, and there are other laws that administrations have used to justify their actions."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/middl...ntl/index.html

""It is a turning point!" This is how over the past 10 days many analysts described the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy chief of the pro-Iranian Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), on January 3 in Baghdad."


https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...094615099.html

"Experts disagree on how to characterize this killing. "I think the best definition would be either one of assassination or murder," Gary Solis, a retired Marine who taught on the laws of war at West Point, tells NPR. He says what happened is comparable to Iran killing a high-ranking U.S. military official with a bomb on U.S. soil."

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/04/79341...ilitary-leader

"Not everyone is convinced. “These killings cannot be distinguished from unlawful assassination,” Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told me.

If you believe targeted killings is a sanitized term for assassinations, which have become normalized in the drone-war era but are no less illegal, then targeting Soleimani is a war crime, especially since there’s no formal state of war between the United States and Iran. “Preemptive self-defense is never a legal justification for assassination,” O’Connell said. “Nothing is. The relevant law is the United Nations Charter, which defines self-defense as a right to respond to an actual and significant armed attack.”"


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ni-now/604441/

So let's just agree that I was not totally out of line by using the word "assassination" when referring to the killing of Soleimani.

And you are correct in saying that thus far we are indeed better off.

No not totally out of line, but as I feel misguided and potentially influenced by others also misguided in calling it an assassination. But I'm fine with acknowledging you could take that opinion.

And thank you for the civil response. Taking it to name calling doesn't advance any discussion.