Lie of the year.

[ecco]

As of this weekend, I'd have to vote for:

the Trump administration's claim that it killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting Soleimani, citing an "imminent" threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a "significant campaign of violence" against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.

 

[esmith]

As of this weekend, I'd have to vote for:

the Trump administration's claim that it killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting Soleimani, citing an "imminent" threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a "significant campaign of violence" against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.

From what I understand the information was provided by our intelligence services. Wasn't it a few months ago that there were complaints that the President was not taking/believing the information from our intelligence service?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As of this weekend, I'd have to vote for:

the Trump administration's claim that it killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting Soleimani, citing an "imminent" threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a "significant campaign of violence" against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.

This president has lost our trust and we should certainly demand evidence to justify him taking us to the brink of war.

However, I hope that the anti-Trump crowd (of which I am a part) will not jump to conclusions before we have all the facts on this one. Because if it turns out an attack really was imminent, it will provide the pro-Trump crowd the confirmation they need that all questioning and criticism of Trump is unfounded. And even if a specific attack wasn't imminent, as Biden said in his official statement, Soleimani was long known as a mastermind of attacks against US troops in Iraq via militias. He was killed alongside a top militia leader in Iraq (a claim which I assume is true and which does not appear to be in dispute).

Of course it is deeply concerning that Trump would assassinate a leader of another state, on the sovereign territory of another state, supposedly on his way to visit the Iraq PM to discuss defusing tensions in the region with Saudi Arabia. And of course it is even more troubling when this erratic man is in charge - it's like having a drunk pilot do an emergency landing, we want him to succeed, but we wish we could replace him with someone sober.

But I am starting to give up on using my own values, logic and evidence to evaluate how to respond to Trump. I am starting to only think of it through the lens of "what subset of things that bother me about Trump, are issues we can actually win on". This is not an issue we will win on. At least half the country loves that Trump did this, and will perceive it as a major victory / coup for the President: he stood up to Iranian-backed militias, he upped the ante and Iran backed down. Then, Iran shoots down a civilian plane and sparks protests in their own country.

The optics are extremely in favor of Trump, whatever the facts turn out to be. Anyone who questions the President will be characterized as taking sides with enemies of the United States in their restless quest to "get" Trump on something.

If we want to beat Trump in the 2020 election let's not die on this hill.

 

[BSM1]

This president has lost our trust and we should certainly demand evidence to justify him taking us to the brink of war.

However, I hope that the anti-Trump crowd (of which I am a part) will not jump to conclusions before we have all the facts on this one. Because if it turns out an attack really was imminent, it will provide the pro-Trump crowd the confirmation they need that all questioning and criticism of Trump is unfounded. And even if a specific attack wasn't imminent, as Biden said in his official statement, Soleimani was long known as a mastermind of attacks against US troops in Iraq via militias. He was killed alongside a top militia leader in Iraq (a claim which I assume is true and which does not appear to be in dispute).

Of course it is deeply concerning that Trump would assassinate a leader of another state, on the sovereign territory of another state, supposedly on his way to visit the Iraq PM to discuss defusing tensions in the region with Saudi Arabia. And of course it is even more troubling when this erratic man is in charge - it's like having a drunk pilot do an emergency landing, we want him to succeed, but we wish we could replace him with someone sober.

But I am starting to give up on using my own values, logic and evidence to evaluate how to respond to Trump. I am starting to only think of it through the lens of "what subset of things that bother me about Trump, are issues we can actually win on". This is not an issue we will win on. At least half the country loves that Trump did this, and will perceive it as a major victory / coup for the President: he stood up to Iranian-backed militias, he upped the ante and Iran backed down. Then, Iran shoots down a civilian plane and sparks protests in their own country.

The optics are extremely in favor of Trump, whatever the facts turn out to be. Anyone who questions the President will be characterized as taking sides with enemies of the United States in their restless quest to "get" Trump on something.

If we want to beat Trump in the 2020 election let's not die on this hill.

Not that I am going to waste my time arguing the point, but why in the world would you believe that the top Iranian terrorist would be visiting the Iraqi PM to discuss tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes a little common sense will go a long ways.

 

[Heyo]

Not that I am going to waste my time arguing the point, but why in the world would you believe that the top Iranian terrorist would be visiting the Iraqi PM to discuss tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes a little common sense will go a long ways.

Can you find Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia on a map?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not that I am going to waste my time arguing the point, but why in the world would you believe that the top Iranian terrorist would be visiting the Iraqi PM to discuss tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes a little common sense will go a long ways.

You're right why would Iraq of all places be mediating talks to try to avoid escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia ...

Team America: world police!

Let's drill a hole through Earth's core, so that the United States can more easily send its top military officials to Baghdad, and keep out those meddling Iranians. /sarcasm

What remarkable, astonishing hubris for an American to question the "common sense" of why an Iranian would visit the PM of Iraq.

What is the "common sense" that entitles top American officials visit Iraq?

Here's a little common sense for you: Iraq has suffered many years of violent conflict in the region and probably would suffer even more if tensions between Saudi and Iran escalated into a full-blown conflict. Iraq has been brokering dialogue between Saudi and Iran for a long time now. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Iran is Shia. Iraq is Sunni and Shia and Kurdish. It makes sense for Iraq to mediate between the two countries - even though that side-steps America, the World Police.

Here's video from April 2019 where the three flags and representatives of the countries are all meeting together in Baghdad for a conference. Iraq's involvement mediating between Saudi and Iran has been widely reported, go Google and read about it.

To be clear: I am not saying Solemaini was in fact in Baghdad for the purpose of furthering those discussions. I don't know why he was there. I said he was "supposedly" there for that reason.

I said he was "supposedly" there for that reason, because that's what the Prime Minister of Iraq said. He said they were meeting. And that explanation is perfectly plausible. Solemaini was after all landing at Baghdad international airport, not some secret Iranian base. The White House has yet to provide any evidence to the contrary - not even in a closed-door intelligence briefing with US lawmakers. Again: I am not defending Solemaini, I am saying it is raises questions and we should get the answers.

By analogy: Trump is a drunk pilot. That is why we should demand to know why he ordered an emergency landing. Even if it was successful, he put us at risk. So he better have a good reason. Maybe he does this time.

 

[BSM1]

Can you find Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia on a map?

We're not talking geography, we're trying to answer a simple question. You do know the difference.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We're not talking geography, we're trying to answer a simple question. You do know the difference.

I answered your simple question. Because the Iraqi PM said they were meeting on that topic and because Iraq has been brokering discussions with Iran on that topic prior to this.

 

[Heyo]

We're not talking geography, we're trying to answer a simple question. You do know the difference.

Mr Sprinkles has given an excellent answer I was only hinting at.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Epstein killed himself...

Assisted suicide.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Note:
There are so many lies throughout every year.
But this one rules because it's about the end of the world.
What's bigger'n that, eh.

Cake!

 

[Revoltingest]

Cake!

Lie!
Pie is bigger.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lie!
Pie is bigger.

I'm not saying bigger is better. But look at the size of my feet.

Cake does not need to be bigger in volume to be better. Besides, pie is just really, really moist cake with less flour and no frosting. Unless you count adding ice cream.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying bigger is better. But look at the size of my feet.

Cake does not need to be bigger in volume to be better. Besides, pie is just really, really moist cake with less flour and no frosting. Unless you count adding ice cream.

Blackberry pie
Key lime pie
Blueberry pie
Chicken pot pie
No cake alive can beat the above.

 

[BSM1]

I answered your simple question. Because the Iraqi PM said they were meeting on that topic and because Iraq has been brokering discussions with Iran on that topic prior to this.

In retrospect I do believe I asked the wrong question. I should have asked who would be gullible enough to believe this monster was trying to broker any deal with Iran and SA let alone with the PM of Iraq?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In retrospect I do believe I asked the wrong question. I should have asked who would be gullible enough to believe this monster was trying to broker any deal with Iran and SA let alone with the PM of Iraq?

He wasn’t brokering the discussions - Iraq was. He was delivering Iran’s response to a letter Saudi had sent, supposedly.

He was the no #2 leader in Iran and a right hand man of the Ayatollah ... he’s meeting with the #1 leader in Iraq ... I am no foreign affairs expert, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Maybe you can enlighten me. I am further no expert on Iran, but at a high level, it makes sense that a meeting of such gravity being conducted via back-channel communications between two erstwhile foes, would be attended by such a high ranking person of state, who has long been intimately involved in Iran foreign policy with various friends and foes of Iran, and who would have an intimate knowledge of both the delicate situations in Iraq and also in Yemen. Who ought to have delivered that message if not Solemaini - the Ayatollah himself?

You tell me how you know the Iraqi PM is lying. I’ve presented evidence - I await yours. I keep an open mind, including being open that the Iraqi PM is telling the truth.

Moreover, the White House has not provided any evidence that contradicts this explanation - even in a closed-door session with US lawmakers. In fact, we KNOW the White House is lying, already, by trying to tie Solemaini to 9/11.

Source: No evidence for Pence claim on Soleimani and 9/11 terrorists

Could this White House just tell the truth, for once? I am prepared to believe they did the right thing by assassinating Solemaini. But it’s hard for me to believe this White House when it just ... keeps ... lying.

 

[BSM1]

He wasn’t brokering the discussions - Iraq was. He was delivering Iran’s response to a letter Saudi had sent, supposedly.

He was the no #2 leader in Iran and a right hand man of the Ayatollah ... he’s meeting with the #1 leader in Iraq ... I am no foreign affairs expert, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Maybe you can enlighten me. I am further no expert on Iran, but at a high level, it makes sense that a meeting of such gravity being conducted via back-channel communications between two erstwhile foes, would be attended by such a high ranking person of state, who has long been intimately involved in Iran foreign policy with various friends and foes of Iran, and who would have an intimate knowledge of both the delicate situations in Iraq and also in Yemen. Who ought to have delivered that message if not Solemaini - the Ayatollah himself?

You tell me how you know the Iraqi PM is lying. I’ve presented evidence - I await yours. I keep an open mind, including being open that the Iraqi PM is telling the truth.

Moreover, the White House has not provided any evidence that contradicts this explanation - even in a closed-door session with US lawmakers. In fact, we KNOW the White House is lying, already, by trying to tie Solemaini to 9/11.

Source: No evidence for Pence claim on Soleimani and 9/11 terrorists

Could this White House just tell the truth, for once? I am prepared to believe they did the right thing by assassinating Solemaini. But it’s hard for me to believe this White House when it just ... keeps ... lying.

"Supposedly", huh? You've just made my case. Thanks. I stand by my statement of gullibility. The rest of your post truly defines your agenda. This makes it very difficult to have an unbiased conversation with you.

 

[columbus]

In retrospect I do believe I asked the wrong question. I should have asked who would be gullible enough to believe this monster was trying to broker any deal with Iran and SA let alone with the PM of Iraq?

Suppose a top US general were in Israel, trying to broker peace, and was assassinated by the Syrians?

Would you still think, "Well, he has done a lot of damage. So, he had it coming."?
Tom

 

[BSM1]

Suppose a top US general were in Israel, trying to broker peace, and was assassinated by the Syrians?

Would you still think, "Well, he has done a lot of damage. So, he had it coming."?
Tom

We're not even talking about the same thing; and you should be ashamed to even think of defending this animal. Not only was he responsible for over 600 American deaths, but he killed and terrorized innocent people all over the Mideast. He was responsible for the torture and execution of many gay Iranians as well. He had been targeted by the US and European countries for the last 7 years. This is a death to celebrate (yes, I said celebrate).

 

[columbus]

Not only was he responsible for over 600 American deaths, but he killed and terrorized innocent people all over the Mideast.

An awful lot of Americans fit that description.

Is assassinating them OK?
Tom