US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

#3,451
#3,451
lawgator1 said:
Since we do not know what was said in the briefing we have to consider the three camps.

Camp 1 is the Dems. They say the intelligence briefing was inadequate and did not show imminent threat. You discount that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 2: The standard R's, who are in lock step with Trump and fearful of his base. They say the briefing was adequate and showed imminent threat. You accept that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 3: RP and Lee. Loyal Republicans, but skeptical of abuse of military power by any president. They are ADAMANT that the briefing sucked and did not show imminent threat. They say they were told just accept the generic representations made to them and move on, not question anything.

View attachment 253032
Click to expand...

I like how you put #1 me being partisan so it’s a no , and #2 me being partisan so yes . Lol

How about none of us know and therefore it’s all questionable from every angle . I’m guessing that’s not acceptable knowing all the ones in example #1 are honest , without fault , only being truthful , without reproach , have no agenda .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tennvols77 and NCFisher
#3,453
#3,453
lawgator1 said:
Since we do not know what was said in the briefing we have to consider the three camps.

Camp 1 is the Dems. They say the intelligence briefing was inadequate and did not show imminent threat. You discount that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 2: The standard R's, who are in lock step with Trump and fearful of his base. They say the briefing was adequate and showed imminent threat. You accept that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 3: RP and Lee. Loyal Republicans, but skeptical of abuse of military power by any president. They are ADAMANT that the briefing sucked and did not show imminent threat. They say they were told just accept the generic representations made to them and move on, not question anything.

View attachment 253032
Click to expand...

So, imminently, Soleimani was not meeting with Hez leaders to plot more attacks.

AND, was never going to since joining local Scout Troop #217 as a New Year's resolution.

My God, the contortions the left and two wobbly Repubs won't assume to Resist!!

Camp 4: If Congress were doing it's job, they'd have issued a statement years ago requesting the president - any president - to whack this SOB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,454
#3,454
0nelilreb said:
I like how you put #1 me being partisan so it’s a no , and #2 me being partisan so yes . Lol

How about no of us know and therefore it’s all questionable from every angle . I’m guessing that’s not acceptable knowing all the ones in example #1 are honest , without fault , only being truthful , without reproach , have no agenda .
Click to expand...

You can have any color so long as it's noncommittal gray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 0nelilreb
#3,456
#3,456
luthervol said:
Give me a freakin' break. That may be the biggest load of crap that I've read this year on the PF.
Classic BS move: Give a partial statement.
What if she bragged that she grabbed guys by the balls?
What if she cheated on her spouse repeatedly and used questionable funds, threats, and intimidation to buy their silence?
What if she was known to be a habitual liar?
What if she was immature and petty and constantly tweeted juvenile insults?
What if she publicly called members of her own party human scum?
What if she had a long history of swindling people out of millions of dollars?
What if she chose as her "advisers" some of the most hateful and divisive people imaginable?

If I knew any of these things were true, I would be much less likely to support her. If I knew that all or most of these things were true, I would certainly be looking to support someone else.

Facts? LOL

See if you can process this one.
I'm in a room full of people wearing either bama or UT clothing. Someone new walks in wearing UT clothing and I'm asked if I agree with that person's college allegiance of choice.
I say, "I know next to nothing about that person but I'm confident I agree with her more than with others in this room."
Get a clue and then think a little.
Click to expand...
If you see a person wearing a hijab lamenting the unjust eradication of one of the worst known terrorists in the world and automatically assume that her ideals align with your own, then we probably don't need to take this any further.

Serious question: since you obviously hate the United States and all that we stand for, have you ever considered escaping the oppression and moving to a safer, freedom-loving nation with more opportunity? The weather is nice in Venezuela, China has hella-good stir fry, and don't listen to what most people say about North Korea -- internet access is waaaay overrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64 and tennvols77
#3,460
#3,460
GreyWolf1129 said:
So now there is mounting evidence that the Iranians shot down that aircraft… that had just taken off from Tehran Airport.

Yessir, that Iranian Air Defense network.....top shelf.
Click to expand...
Out of the 10-15k planes in the air at any given time, the one that crashes in a country that just shot a bunch of ballistic missiles and scrambled fighter jets was due to a mechanical error? Probably not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64, Orange_Vol1321 and 1 other person
#3,462
#3,462
kiddiedoc said:
Out of the 10-15k planes in the air at any given time, the one that crashes in a country that just shot a bunch of ballistic missiles and scrambled fighter jets was due to a mechanical error? Probably not.
Click to expand...

Well, what they meant by “mechanical error” is that some mechanic mistakenly switched the wires between the shoot and don’t shoot buttons on the missile launcher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64 and kiddiedoc
#3,464
#3,464
I can't imagine the angst climbing aboard that flight knowing ballistic missiles had been fired 4-5 hours earlier. And it was a Ukrainian flight.
 
#3,465
#3,465
GreyWolf1129 said:
63 Canadians dead. What is Prime Minister Trudeau going to do this time? Dress up as a mullah and go visit a mosque to show his forgiveness?
Click to expand...

He will probably just send them a pic of his woke socks and elitist buddies laughing at Trump and ask them if it’s ok to start letting Canadians know its safe to be in Tehran again .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,467
#3,467
The TDS and absolutism of some of the posters is mind-blowing. Eating two of your own (the reps complaining about the briefing) because they aren't perfectly lockstep with the President. That's a wee bit unhealthy, don't you think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#3,469
#3,469
AshG said:
The TDS and absolutism of some of the posters is mind-blowing. Eating two of your own (the reps complaining about the briefing) because they aren't perfectly lockstep with the President. That's a wee bit unhealthy, don't you think?
Click to expand...

That’s why I’ve always said that Democrats circle the wagons a whole lot better than the Rs do .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and AshG
#3,470
#3,470
AshG said:
The TDS and absolutism of some of the posters is mind-blowing. Eating two of your own (the reps complaining about the briefing) because they aren't perfectly lockstep with the President. That's a wee bit unhealthy, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I for one find it refreshing when members of the same party disagree or even outright criticize each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, VolFaninFla, luthervol and 1 other person
#3,472
#3,472
kiddiedoc said:
If you see a person wearing a hijab lamenting the unjust eradication of one of the worst known terrorists in the world and automatically assume that her ideals align with your own, then we probably don't need to take this any further.

Serious question: since you obviously hate the United States and all that we stand for, have you ever considered escaping the oppression and moving to a safer, freedom-loving nation with more opportunity? The weather is nice in Venezuela, China has hella-good stir fry, and don't listen to what most people say about North Korea -- internet access is waaaay overrated.
Click to expand...
The first bolded part of your post is spot on, the second bolded part of your post explains why.
 
#3,475
#3,475
lawgator1 said:
Since we do not know what was said in the briefing we have to consider the three camps.

Camp 1 is the Dems. They say the intelligence briefing was inadequate and did not show imminent threat. You discount that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 2: The standard R's, who are in lock step with Trump and fearful of his base. They say the briefing was adequate and showed imminent threat. You accept that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 3: RP and Lee. Loyal Republicans, but skeptical of abuse of military power by any president. They are ADAMANT that the briefing sucked and did not show imminent threat. They say they were told just accept the generic representations made to them and move on, not question anything.

View attachment 253032
Click to expand...
Camp 4: Who the hell cares, the world is minus a terrorist today
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeburst and 0nelilreb
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top