Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Capt Nice, Jan 13, 2020.
How many in the Trump admin have been lied about by the fake news?
I'll tell you what. You invest one evening watching MSNBC tomorrow after dinner and if you can quote to me one lie that's told on that station I'll buy you a nice steak dinner. $50.00 should cover it. If you fail to identify one lie they tell, let me know, I'll give you my address and you can send me $50.00 for my steak dinnere. Fake news my Aas. You will also have the advantage of hearing reports from people that aren't in trump's pocket.
Who gives a rats ass. You dems look for anything to support your narrative. This was a terrorist that had Americans blood on his hands. Trump took him out. Why is this difficult to understand??
Hahahahaha! I want in on this.
Not sure what that has to do with not seeing evidence but...
Affiliation as confirmed by the deep state who you trust implicitly
It was a terrible military briefing. Lack of compelling evidence was one of the complaints. We can leave at that if you like or you can try and be more pedantic.
No, a drone and some ****ing renaissance operations.
So you've gone from "no evidence" to "lack of compelling evidence" in the military briefing. Gotcha.
You seem to be misunderstanding...
I didn't ask about compelling evidence, which is open to interpretation. The OP said no evidence. If you can't show me where anybody said that, you're wasting your time.
I haven't gone from anything. What you quoted was my first post on this.
I've been making the offer since I came to this forum and if you accept you'll be the first. The only clarification I ask is the lie has to come from a reporter/agent of MSNBC. After all, if any lie coming from a guest of the program was to cause me to loose the bet I'd be in bad shape if they were interviewing trump wouldn't I?
Deep state? Do you mean long term civil servants within a byzantine bureaucratic structure placing the agency's needs, their career perhaps, ahead of the intended mission of the agency? This is government wide. Or, do you mean specifically the intelligence community?
In this instance I think you mean intelligence community at large. Maybe this was 100% CIA, but I'm thinking a lot of DIA in it's tactical elements within Iraq and the region. The Commander of US Central Command most definitely had a voice and was more than in the loop. General Kenneth McKenzie's approval was most likely the determinate factor. This is his area of operations and he shoulders the responsibility of defending against any blow back by the Iranians. He seems to have acquitted himself well to the task.
Welcome to counterintelligence sweet-pea. I've argued on this forum, over and over again, what exactly counterintelligence is, and why it should never be used domestically in law enforcement, ever. Counterintelligence deals in probabilities, not certainties, then acts to stop the probable act by any means necessary.
Outside the United States, I'l go with "Estimative Probability." https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...tional-estimates-collected-essays/6words.html
We can never get certainty until after the fact when dealing with something that someone or some force might do. So we estimate the probability and act to stop a probable event when capability, posture, disposition and past actions create strong evidence to sustain our judgment that "X is almost certain to do X", probably.
This DOD article lays out the evidence.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2020 —President Donald J. Trump last night directed, and the Defense Department subsequently launched, an airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, a senior DOD official said during a news teleconference.
U.S. Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines assigned to the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command (SPMAGTF-CR-CC) 19.2, reinforce the Baghdad Embassy Compound in Iraq, Jan. 3, 20202. The SPMAGTF-CR-CC is a quick reaction force, prepared to deploy a variety of capabilities across the region. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Kyle C. Talbot)
"He was the commander directly responsible for organizing and directing multiple attacks against Americans in the region, including [Kataeb Hezbollah] attacks we've seen over the last several months," the official said today.
Kataeb Hezbollah is a group with links to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force.
Soleimani, was actively and consistently developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region, the official added.
This U.S. attack was carried out in a manner that minimized collateral damage. It was designed to defend American lives and to prevent further bloodshed, the official noted.
The official mentioned there has been a steady increase over the past year in attacks by Shiite militia groups against bases hosting U.S. and coalition forces, the official said. "The attacks have significantly intensified over the past two months," the official said.
On Dec. 27, U.S. forces in Iraq were attacked near Kirkuk by Kataeb Hezbollah the official continued. The attack — in which 31 rockets were fired — killed one American civilian contractor and injured four American service members, as well as two members of the Iraqi security forces.
As a result, the U.S. military responded and took defensive actions by striking Kataeb Hezbollah bases in western Iraq and western Syria, the official said.
"We have been very clear with Iran and our Iraqi partners that these increasing attacks need to stop and that we would hold Iran directly responsible for any harm to U.S. personnel," the official concluded.
What do you place the probability at Mello?
You don't have enough money and I don't want to become fat.
You have a drone now?
The US Military does, which gives the intelligence to the intelligence community. Do I have to go into basic detail over every known facet of operations?
And another mouth writes a check it can't cash! I'm having fun with you guys. A lot of lip flappin' about fake news but still no takers.
Aka the deep state
There's always a threat! Even here in the US our bases are normally at some threatcon. Stop being coy, you know there was no imminent threat.
I am against it. While Soleimani deserved his fate I question the strategic value of the strike. The globe is saturated with evil people and one is almost certainly ready to take over for Soleimani. His assassination had almost no upside and carried the possibility of a wide bloody conflict. The decision to kill the Iranian general was reckless and, quite frankly, stupid.
Did they? What evidence do you have for this claim?
To be fair, all administrations in recent memory behave the same way towards the ME. Makes you wonder who's really calling the shots.
Do marines know the difference between probably and imminent?
Do you know what the statement "no evidence" means?
Clearly, the OP does not.
I'm still waiting for someone to post a quote from somebody involved who said they saw no evidence. I'm sure I'll be waiting until the end of time, or this thread disappears.
Should clarify.. I'd be for it if there was an actual imminent threat against US personnel or property... as we were told. Imminent to my way of thinking is 72 hours or less..
If its revenge for past deeds or no actual plans on the books, I gotta believe there would have been something better to do, or nothing at all.
Separate names with a comma.