
Soleimani graduation pic^
Does that look like a hardened criminal to you? Soleimani was just a boy when Trump heartlessly snatched his life away. He had made some mistakes, sure, but did he deserve to die for being black?
The attacks on the two bases are more likely a face-saving mission for Iranian domestic consumption. Their missiles are supposedly GPS guided and therefore extremely accurate so if they resulted in zero casualties that is because they didn't want casualties which would have caused further retaliation.BjornP wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:40 am Reprisals in the form of conventional military attacks, seem like they'd be destined to fail given vast American military and technological superiority. Soleimani was a general in a department of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard that is best compared to the CIA, so a proportionate attack, in terms of importance of target and likelihood of succes, would be some US intelligence chief. The base attack could just be a distraction, then.
Imminent threat to whom? The only thing they claimed, and I refuse to believe them without substantive and verifiable evidence, was that he was helping a Shia irregular militia organize attacks against American troops in Iraq, not against our nation. Maybe that is worthy of retaliation, but it is Congress' job to decide, and I would argue not worth the cost of war.pineapplemike wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:41 ameven if pompeo claims there was an imminent threat?Speaker to Animals wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:12 am War Powers Act also does not even give him this authority. No immediate threat to our nation was circumvented.
Iran is as much an "imminent threat" to the U.S. as the Martians are. However, if they ever get a viable drone program developed or gifted to them, the standard has been set regarding unrestricted drone assassination programs. We'll know about that soon enough, I reckon. Will "Iran will never have a nuclear weapon" (no shit, Sherlock) easily translate to "Iran will never have a viable drone?"Speaker to Animals wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:12 am (6) If you really believe what the IC and MIC tell you at this point, then you are hopeless. They lied about PissGate, RussiaGate, and illegal domestic spying programs. They fabricated evidence of Iraqi WMDs to launch an illegal war and occupation of Iraq that led to this entire situation in the first place. They are like Henry Rollins in the I'm a Liar video and anybody who believes this shit at face value now is essentially like a battered wife who can't bring herself to accept her man is a piece of shit.
Get real. This is a total shit show.
i think the claim is horseshit tooSpeaker to Animals wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:58 amImminent threat to whom? The only thing they claimed, and I refuse to believe them without substantive and verifiable evidence, was that he was helping a Shia irregular militia organize attacks against American troops in Iraq, not against our nation. Maybe that is worthy of retaliation, but it is Congress' job to decide, and I would argue not worth the cost of war.pineapplemike wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:41 ameven if pompeo claims there was an imminent threat?Speaker to Animals wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:12 am War Powers Act also does not even give him this authority. No immediate threat to our nation was circumvented.
Taken at face value, the claim is that this guy was helping an Iraqi militia group with ties to Iran to attack American troops who illegally invaded and occupied their country. So they killed him. Which prompted a rocket attack last night. Which will prompt further escalations.
Remember the chain of cause and effect did not begin with this asshole Iranian traveling to Iraq to teach mongrels how to become insurgents. It began with faked WMD intelligence and lies in 2002 to justify what was an illegal invasion of Iraq and arguably a war crime. Maybe we should step back and consider the possibility that the MIC and deep state are much bigger pieces of shit than this terrorist general..
john bolton isnt in government anymore but this signals to me that theyve been looking for justification for awhileCongratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AmbJohnBolto ... 8689720321
Huh, if Cunty is referring to me then he is wide of the mark as I am on record as criticising Gabbard for running cover for Assad's chemical attacks on Syrian civilians and have not feigned support for her at all. In fact I called her an appeaser who was an unwitting ally for Putin and Assad and disputed her claim that all the resistance forces in Syria were ISIS terrorists as the Kurds are clearly not.pineapplemike wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:42 amu wot m8clubgop wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:07 amYou mean the candidate the two chucklehead undercover hack bitches that loved them some "Muh Russia," feign support for even though she is now the biggest victim of that very hoax?
Changing principles on a dime? Just to fit thier TDS narrative? Same shit, different day.
The US owns the GPS system. I had to engineer some workarounds for our wireless communication systems to deal with threats like GPS spoofing attacks, etc. I found out the government can actually spoof GPS data (it is just a timestamp emitted from geosynch satellites) to alter precision or even location for anybody not using military hardware.Montegriffo wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:57 amThe attacks on the two bases are more likely a face-saving mission for Iranian domestic consumption. Their missiles are supposedly GPS guided and therefore extremely accurate so if they resulted in zero casualties that is because they didn't want casualties which would have caused further retaliation.BjornP wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:40 am Reprisals in the form of conventional military attacks, seem like they'd be destined to fail given vast American military and technological superiority. Soleimani was a general in a department of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard that is best compared to the CIA, so a proportionate attack, in terms of importance of target and likelihood of succes, would be some US intelligence chief. The base attack could just be a distraction, then.
The Iranian leader has announced that he considers this to be an end to it and there won't be any more attacks.
Any further attacks are likely to be from proxies based outside Iran to allow for ''plausible deniability''.
It also sends the message that Iranian missiles can get past US missile defences which may act as a deterrent from further US reprisals.
Basically, the ball is now in Trump's court and he knows that his tough-guy act with the Soleimani assassination will play well with his base but further escalation leading to a possible full-scale war will not.
Mad at Tulsi for appeasing Syria while he cheers on appeasement with Iran. No obvious double standard there.Montegriffo wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:06 amHuh, if Cunty is referring to me then he is wide of the mark as I am on record as criticising Gabbard for running cover for Assad's chemical attacks on Syrian civilians and have not feigned support for her at all. In fact I called her an appeaser who was an unwitting ally for Putin and Assad and disputed her claim that all the resistance forces in Syria were ISIS terrorists as the Kurds are clearly not.pineapplemike wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:42 amu wot m8clubgop wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:07 am
You mean the candidate the two chucklehead undercover hack bitches that loved them some "Muh Russia," feign support for even though she is now the biggest victim of that very hoax?
Changing principles on a dime? Just to fit thier TDS narrative? Same shit, different day.
Same shit different day...
fingers crossed speaker brings the hammer down on your syrian gas attack narrative now that he's posting again, i have no interest in typing that muchMontegriffo wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:06 amHuh, if Cunty is referring to me then he is wide of the mark as I am on record as criticising Gabbard for running cover for Assad's chemical attacks on Syrian civilians and have not feigned support for her at all. In fact I called her an appeaser who was an unwitting ally for Putin and Assad and disputed her claim that all the resistance forces in Syria were ISIS terrorists as the Kurds are clearly not.pineapplemike wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:42 amu wot m8clubgop wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:07 am
You mean the candidate the two chucklehead undercover hack bitches that loved them some "Muh Russia," feign support for even though she is now the biggest victim of that very hoax?
Changing principles on a dime? Just to fit thier TDS narrative? Same shit, different day.
Same shit different day...