Did we just get an Archduke Ferninand Moment compliments of Trump? (Page 5): You fools are making such a big deal of our k*****g of an evil islamic terrorist man but yet say nothing of...

Big Kahuna

rumitoid wrote:

I am somewhat on the fence about the assassination of Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani. The arguments pro and con are somewhat a wash, though I lean that it was wrong and a direct threat to national security...and worse. I am tempted to give the reasons for my lean towards it being wrong, and the split on the topic seems to go along party lines, yet I want to hear what you think. Was it or wasn't the right thing to do ethically, morally, and strategically?

You fools are making such a big deal of our k*****g of an evil islamic terrorist man but yet say nothing of the i*****l a***ns who break into our country, rape, steal and murder our American citizens and then get the privilege to v**e. You l*****t dems are real sickos.

Rose42

rumitoid wrote:

I have in no way, shape or form defended that scumbag. That is pure party-line BS attack. Re-read my thread, if it matters to your trolling.

You would do well to stop posting for a while. You’re getting manic

Big Kahuna

Rose42 wrote:

You would do well to stop posting for a while. You’re getting manic

All the l*****ts on this site have become manic and are getting worse. This is causing us to have to slap them back twice as hard. It might be time to limit their discourse on this site as it is causing unwanted civil and mental disturbances and radical l*****ts to go out of control.

EmilyD

drlarrygino wrote:

You fools are making such a big deal of our k*****g of an evil islamic terrorist man but yet say nothing of the i*****l a***ns who break into our country, rape, steal and murder our American citizens and then get the privilege to v**e. You l*****t dems are real sickos.

According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Soleimani was traveling for the purpose of "building out what they were referring to as the big attack." He also stated that there was an "imminent" attack "that could have k**led dozens or hundreds of Americans."

"He was traveling the region when he landed in Baghdad. The travels before that put him in places all around the region, which were aimed solely at building out what they were referring to as the big attack. They were aiming to take down significant amounts of Americans. It would’ve undoubtedly k**led locals too. Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, perhaps, people all throughout the region. This was an attack that would have been to some scale."

And rumitoid is worried about protocol.

Saspatz007 Loc: The goat sheds

rumitoid wrote:

Think about law and order. That is the fundamental basis of our Republic. We are not a government that assassinates enemies in undeclared wars, no matter how much he deserved. It was flat-out wrong, and if you agree with that action you spit not only on our Constitution but all principles of liberty. We are based, or were, on due process. Trump spits on that basic right.

😂🤣😂🤣😅
Have you NO knowledge of the “foreign policy” America has carried out all over the world? I’m not saying we’re unique in this behavior. Major political powers all over the world and throughout history have done the same thing.

We spy on them. They spy on us. We foment r*******n to replace leadership we can’t “work” with. They do the same. We assassinate people that are a “problem”, so do they.

Welcome to the world of international politics. There is no such thing as international law, and nobody who can actually enforce the “agreements”.

Treaty’s are only as good as the word (and/or the power of allies to make sure that they get “enforced” on the other guys), as long as they are useful to the more powerful alliance.

The only currency that is valued is international “reputation” and trust on the world stage. The worst thing the UN can do is condemn you. This can make it more difficult to expand alliances and trade agreements.

Welcome to the real world.

dongreen76

maureenthannon wrote:

Think about the thousands of people that died because of the terrorist butcher! How many more wuld ave to be klilled before you'd be okay with stopping him?

I'm always okay with the prospect of people that "`WULD `AVE`" been k**led...
as opposed to people that would have been k**led, because I don't have an understanding of what is going to happen to people whom ,"`WULD `AVE` been k**led".

Saspatz007 Loc: The goat sheds

dtucker300 wrote:

We are in a declared war on terrorism. Nothing illegal about what he did.
If you think Trump keeps doing illegal things while in office and is such a big threat to the peace and security of the nation, then why doesn't Pelosi move forward with the impeachment. I would think she would be anxious and want to get this over with quickly so he can't do any more damage, in their eyes, to this country. Phony baloney Pelosi.

I have a problem with the lack of clear demarcation between “terrorists” vs “freedom fighters”. From what I’ve seen “terrorists” are on the side fighting them and “freedom fighters” are their allies.

dongreen76

Saspatz007 wrote:

I have a problem with the lack of clear demarcation between “terrorists” vs “freedom fighters”. From what I’ve seen “terrorists” are on the side fighting them and “freedom fighters” are their allies.

In the terrorist minds, they are themselves freedom fighters,fighting for their sovereignty rights, sovereignty which is independence. In those on the other side that also call themselves freedom fighters,but are viewed as terrorist by those they have Identified the other side as terrorist.The party whom sovereignty and independence whom incurr imminent direct suppression and oppression are and should be construed as more or less true freedom fighters.
When deciding whether or not to engage in war, the criteria and rules of engagement decrees that those that perceive themselves as or in danger, generally ask themselves one profound question -and that is - IS THERE ANY IMMENENT DANGER ?
In other words-one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

rumitoid wrote:

Would you have approved of k*****g, without trial, anyone accused of murder or plotting to commit it? Bundy, for instance. Screw our laws and Constitution? It seems so. Abandon the structure of our Republic, that has secured our nation for over 200 years, To carry out an illegal vendetta?

Obama had Ben the Arab k**led and all America even folks like you rejoiced. Your slip is showing.

Big Kahuna

Saspatz007 wrote:

I have a problem with the lack of clear demarcation between “terrorists” vs “freedom fighters”. From what I’ve seen “terrorists” are on the side fighting them and “freedom fighters” are their allies.

Here's the difference. If someone starts some shi$ and wants to take you down and then breaks into your house to do just that, they are a terrorist. If you as an innocent party oppose someone murdering you and breaking into your house and you fight back, you are a freedom fighter. Hope you see the difference. ISIS is out to destroy, rob, maim and murder anyone who stands in their way so as to enforce sharia law on us. They are terrorists. On the other hand, most people want to be free and don't want to be forced to bow down to islam or Madhammad. These are freedom fighters. Do you need any more examples??

Wonttakeitanymore

dongreen76 wrote:

No,this is not a situation that could potentially ... (show quote)

Gas prices continue to go down! Blow em up!!! Take Saudi Arabia and seria too! We can do better without them!

bggamers Loc: georgia

rumitoid wrote:

I am somewhat on the fence about the assassination of Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani. The arguments pro and con are somewhat a wash, though I lean that it was wrong and a direct threat to national security...and worse. I am tempted to give the reasons for my lean towards it being wrong, and the split on the topic seems to go along party lines, yet I want to hear what you think. Was it or wasn't the right thing to do ethically, morally, and strategically?

These little countries Iran, N Korea are testing our fences seeing how far they can push us before they get their hand slapped. To not do anything would be an encouragement to keep pushing and jacking up the threat. Their president made a stupid remark about they could do what they want and there was nothing we could do about it. I guess he was proven wrong

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

rumitoid wrote:

Yes, and I would have wanted to do the same, happily. But that is not the America that I know and respect and pledge my allegiance.

The America you know and respect would not be the same without things of that nature, the herd needed culling for the greater good.

Without that, your America does not exist as you see it.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

rumitoid wrote:

I am somewhat on the fence about the assassination of Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani. The arguments pro and con are somewhat a wash, though I lean that it was wrong and a direct threat to national security...and worse. I am tempted to give the reasons for my lean towards it being wrong, and the split on the topic seems to go along party lines, yet I want to hear what you think. Was it or wasn't the right thing to do ethically, morally, and strategically?

You're not on the fence. Want to know what gave that away? "Assassination." He was simply caught in the crosshairs or he happened to be there so much the better. Of course it was the right thing. msm didn't tell you that Iranian people are now burning offices down, happy to be rid of the scum. The same thing in Iraq.

SUZZY

NO HELL NO!!! BIG MISTAKE JUST A DISTRACTION FROM IMPEACHMENT