SecDef Esper: 'I didn't see [evidence] with regard to four embassies'

itsbob

I bowl overhand
ESPER: Soleimani was taken out to prevent broader plot that would have taken us to “open hostility with Iran”.

Did you forget to quote this part?? This was to prevent going to war with Iran?? Or are you ok with defending a terrorist that was already responsible for killing more than 600 of our young men and women, and sending more to die IN Iran??
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
I'm just glad Soleimani is dead and gone. Long overdue.
MOST Americans are.. Especially the parents, wives, husbands and children of those he's already killed.

Only treasonous shitbags are upset their hero is dead.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
ESPER: Soleimani was taken out to prevent broader plot that would have taken us to “open hostility with Iran”.

Did you forget to quote this part?? This was to prevent going to war with Iran?? Or are you ok with defending a terrorist that was already responsible for killing more than 600 of our young men and women, and sending more to die IN Iran??

:lol: Yea, I'm sure. Just like Iraq having WMD. We should take their word for it, huh? It's not like they haven't lied to us before, right?

Are we cool with the intel community now? Just making sure I know when to believe them and when not to. So far, it's whenever Trump tells you to.




And I know this is beyond your comprehension levels, but questioning the "imminent" nature of a threat (especially considering the ever-changing nature of what defines "imminent") used to justify the action is not the same as justifying Soleimani or his actions. But you're making that argument because it's the only one you have. Your "law and order" President doesn't actually care about it (but secretly, neither do you). You all just enjoy being lied to.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
:lol: Yea, I'm sure. Just like Iraq having WMD. We should take their word for it, huh? It's not like they haven't lied to us before, right?

Are we cool with the intel community now? Just making sure I know when to believe them and when not to. So far, it's whenever Trump tells you to.




And I know this is beyond your comprehension levels, but questioning the "imminent" nature of a threat (especially considering the ever-changing nature of what defines "imminent") used to justify the action is not the same as justifying Soleimani or his actions. But you're making that argument because it's the only one you have. Your "law and order" President doesn't actually care about it (but secretly, neither do you). You all just enjoy being lied to.
144277
 
Reactions: BOP

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
Haters gonna Hate,,,,,,, How about if President Trump wins a second term you move to a country that suits you better....
Its a win for everyone......
 
Reactions: BOP

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Everyone wants to see the evidence of the imminent attacks. Problem is that by disclosing that evidence the source of it or the method of obtaining it might well be disclosed thereby resulting in a loss of the source or the method. Is it any wonder that many are talking around it versus just spilling their guts.
 
Reactions: BOP

Toxick

Splat
Problem is that by disclosing that evidence the source of it or the method of obtaining it might well be disclosed thereby resulting in a loss of the source or the method.


:gossip: : We know that - it's half the equation for the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario that we created.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Haters gonna Hate,,,,,,, How about if President Trump wins a second term you move to a country that suits you better....
Its a win for everyone......
Where'd you move to during Obama's second term?


Everyone wants to see the evidence of the imminent attacks. Problem is that by disclosing that evidence the source of it or the method of obtaining it might well be disclosed thereby resulting in a loss of the source or the method. Is it any wonder that many are talking around it versus just spilling their guts.
I personally don't care about the details, but it's clear that there was no imminent threat (unless one changes the definition), the "threat" itself has changed multiple times, the SecDef (and at least one member of Congress) contradicted Trump's attempt at justifying the action by misleading (or lying to) the American people.

It seems that we, the people, simply enjoy being lied to. Regardless of who is in office.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
:lol: Yea, I'm sure. Just like Iraq having WMD. We should take their word for it, huh? It's not like they haven't lied to us before, right?
No, we should take Iran's word for it. :rolleyes:

Damn you terrorist sympathizers are living in the wrong country.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
but it's clear that there was no imminent threat
Based on what? Imminent, to me, means likely to occur at any time, not something specific. Given that Soleimani was breathing it is likely that he was planning on carrying out additional attacks upon our assets, personnel or interests similar to what he had already orchestrated.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Everyone wants to see the evidence of the imminent attacks. Problem is that by disclosing that evidence the source of it or the method of obtaining it might well be disclosed thereby resulting in a loss of the source or the method. Is it any wonder that many are talking around it versus just spilling their guts.
The problem isn't the details, its that the admin did not disclose the '4 embassy attack' angle to the congress because it would supposedly expose the intel but trump told the world on fox.
This is just trumps bengahzi video.......
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Based on what? Imminent, to me, means likely to occur at any time, not something specific. Given that Soleimani was breathing it is likely that he was planning on carrying out additional attacks upon our assets, personnel or interests similar to what he had already orchestrated.
By that justification we can assassinate anyone at anytime because they may do something at some time.

Pompeo himself said:
We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where
Sure sounds imminent.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
ESPER: Soleimani was taken out to prevent broader plot that would have taken us to “open hostility with Iran”.

Did you forget to quote this part?? This was to prevent going to war with Iran?? Or are you ok with defending a terrorist that was already responsible for killing more than 600 of our young men and women, and sending more to die IN Iran??
Where, exactly, did Chris defend a terrorist?

It really is amazing what a bunch of chuckleheads you people are. There was no imminent threat...that was and is the Administration's rationale for killing Soleamani. It isn't that he "was a bad guy".

Why can't morons like you understand how easy it would have been to justify this?

The Administration and our Dear Leader could have simply said: he was a bad guy who killed hundreds of Americans. He stepped out of his country, we had a shot at him so we took it. Of course, there could have been myriads of other ways to get him when he was in Iraq that would not have led directly back to us. But that is what happens when leadership's decisions are spur of the moment, knee jerk type.

Instead, they lie (obviously they are lying) that there was some "imminent threat" to bomb one or more embassies nor was there a broader definable plot. Not a single embassy was warned or put on heightened alert.

Soleamani may have been a POS...but, as usual, Trump's decision making and policy choices are highly questionable, wrong, potentially in violation of international/US law. But all you "rule of law" types only want to apply the "rule of law" when it is convenient or politically expedient...while of course castigating anyone else who chooses to apply the "rule of law" only in situations that benefit them!
 
Reactions: BOP

PsyOps

Pixelated
Where, exactly, did Chris defend a terrorist?

It really is amazing what a bunch of chuckleheads you people are. There was no imminent threat...that was and is the Administration's rationale for killing Soleamani. It isn't that he "was a bad guy".

Why can't morons like you understand how easy it would have been to justify this?

The Administration and our Dear Leader could have simply said: he was a bad guy who killed hundreds of Americans.
You're so full of ####. Even if Trump had stated "he was a bad guy who killed hundreds of Americans", you would still be calling for his head on a platter. But WAIT! Trump did say "he was a bad guy who killed hundreds of Americans".

And you call others "moron"? You're too stupid to even know a moron when you see one.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Didn't assassinate anyone. This was a terrorist combatant that was adequately dispatched in an authorized manner.

Definition of assassination

1: murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons : the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assassination

President Trump said his order to launch the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani came amid pressure from Senate Republicans he views as key allies in his upcoming impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported and The New York Times reported this week.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/477696-trump-strike-on-soleimani-came-amid-pressure-from-impeachment
 
Top