Survivalist Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
This is a piece mostly written by Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, found on "TruthDig".

Mod Edit for copyright rules: Articles can been read here https://www.truthdig.com/author/juan_cole/

"Commentators are suggesting that the 'imminent threat argument' is the equivalent for the Trump Administration of the 'weapons of mass destruction' claim of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraq War."

Even Defense Secretary, Mark Esper has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence of the imminence of any threat.

"He (the general) does not appear to have killed or had killed any Americans at all in the past decade, and from 2015 because of the UN Security Council nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was not an adversary of the U.S. in recent years. In fact, he was often a de facto ally, and the U.S. Air Force gave him air support at Tikrit and elsewhere in the campaign against ISIL (ISIS, Daesh)."

"Then there was the fiaasco of the post-operation briefing of Congress on the killing which enraged Senator Mike Lee of Utah."

It appears that Soleimani was actually coming to Iraq on a mission of negotiating less conflict with Saudi Arabia."

When can we believe politicians about anything, especially war?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I don't think Trump would have gave the go ahead unless he had some type of intel on the guy.
That's what we thought about weapons of mass destruction that got us into the Iraq War and no proof of their existence was ever given. Fooled me and everyone I knew. I thought, "Why would they lie about invading a country?"
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
15,792 Posts
This is a piece mostly written by Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, found on "TruthDig".

"Commentators are suggesting that the 'imminent threat argument' is the equivalent for the Trump Administration of the 'weapons of mass destruction' claim of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraq War."

Even Defense Secretary, Mark Esper has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence of the imminence of any threat.

"He (the general) does not appear to have killed or had killed any Americans at all in the past decade, and from 2015 because of the UN Security Council nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was not an adversary of the U.S. in recent years. In fact, he was often a de facto ally, and the U.S. Air Force gave him air support at Tikrit and elsewhere in the campaign against ISIL (ISIS, Daesh)."

"Then there was the fiaasco of the post-operation briefing of Congress on the killing which enraged Senator Mike Lee of Utah."

It appears that Soleimani was actually coming to Iraq on a mission of negotiating less conflict with Saudi Arabia."

When can we believe politicians about anything, especially war?
Only a history professor could look at the last 40 yrs in the middle east and pronounce a crock of **** like that.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
That's what we thought about weapons of mass destruction that got us into the Iraq War and no proof of their existence was ever given. Fooled me and everyone I knew. I thought, "Why would they lie about invading a country?"
There were chemical weapons in Iraq, the media blew the WMD thing out of proportion and the average person assumed they meant nukes. It just snowballed from there... I didn't see any nukes... but yes there were most assuredly chemical weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
There were chemical weapons in Iraq, the media blew the WMD thing out of proportion and the average person assumed they meant nukes. It just snowballed from there... I didn't see any nukes... but yes there were most assuredly chemical weapons.
Check out the quote "we can't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud" and you'll know who hyped the "WMD thing" into a nuclear assertion.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Check out the quote "we can't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud" and you'll know who hyped the "WMD thing" into a nuclear assertion.
He wasn't the only one. There were plenty of references tossed around on the 5-oclock news by everyone and their dog.

Not defending Bush Jr, just making it clear that he wasn't alone in that. I am also not saying they weren't there at some point, they just weren't where I was looking, at the time I was looking. Who knows if they ever were, only person that was guaranteed to know was found cowering in a hole and summarily executed after his trial so he ain't talking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
The Ayatollahs got rid of Soleimani because he'd already threatened to stage a military coup. They didn't want to do it themselves, so they tipped off the CIA by telling them exactly where and when the strike should take place so there'd be little collateral damage. That's why the hit took place in Iraq, plausible deniability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
He wasn't the only one. There were plenty of references tossed around on the 5-oclock news by everyone and their dog.

Not defending Bush Jr, just making it clear that he wasn't alone in that. I am also not saying they weren't there at some point, they just weren't where I was looking, at the time I was looking. Who knows if they ever were, only person that was guaranteed to know was found cowering in a hole and summarily executed after his trial so he ain't talking.
That was the same recursive logic that was used by Dub's people. They'd leak to a reporter that there were nukes in Iraq, then they'd go on the Sunday shows and cite the news source they'd leaked the story to as proof that the story was true. Then when the story wasn't true, they'd blame the news sources they'd leaked the story to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Without getting into classified details, Soleimani was killed because he had big plans which were being put into execution. The timing during retaliations was “convenient”, but the decision to kill him was made a while ago. We needed him to officially cross the line before striking.

It isn’t a made up story, there was an imminent threat and we took care of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,472 Posts
That's what we thought about weapons of mass destruction that got us into the Iraq War and no proof of their existence was ever given. Fooled me and everyone I knew. I thought, "Why would they lie about invading a country?"
Obvious troll is.....obvious.

And ridiculous.:rolleyes:

There were chemical weapons in Iraq, the media blew the WMD thing out of proportion and the average person assumed they meant nukes. It just snowballed from there... I didn't see any nukes... but yes there were most assuredly chemical weapons.
Truth. Of course, the media made sure Hussein knew when it was going down, so it was pretty much all gone by the time we got there.
 

·
Awesome
Joined
·
17,065 Posts
soleimani was also present in bosnia during the bosnian war when muslims were mass murdering christian serbs.. the clintons bombed and killed innocent christians, assisting soleimani back in the 90s.. the truth nobody wants to swallow is the clear partnership between the DNC, and iran, and its allies china, and russia.. THAT is why the left is ****y.. they lost an ally
 

·
Dog Lives Matter
Joined
·
6,469 Posts
This is a piece mostly written by Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, found on "TruthDig".

"Commentators are suggesting that the 'imminent threat argument' is the equivalent for the Trump Administration of the 'weapons of mass destruction' claim of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraq War."

Even Defense Secretary, Mark Esper has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence of the imminence of any threat.

"He (the general) does not appear to have killed or had killed any Americans at all in the past decade, and from 2015 because of the UN Security Council nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was not an adversary of the U.S. in recent years. In fact, he was often a de facto ally, and the U.S. Air Force gave him air support at Tikrit and elsewhere in the campaign against ISIL (ISIS, Daesh)."

"Then there was the fiaasco of the post-operation briefing of Congress on the killing which enraged Senator Mike Lee of Utah."

It appears that Soleimani was actually coming to Iraq on a mission of negotiating less conflict with Saudi Arabia."

When can we believe politicians about anything, especially war?
You really need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC for political views. They will always be biased and anti-Trump.

As for TruthDig, it is a left-wing progressive site. It is almost as bad as Media Matters.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/truthdig/
 

·
Dog Lives Matter
Joined
·
6,469 Posts
There were chemical weapons in Iraq, the media blew the WMD thing out of proportion and the average person assumed they meant nukes. It just snowballed from there... I didn't see any nukes... but yes there were most assuredly chemical weapons.
Iraq's chemical weapons were moved to Syria. The Israelis told us that as we were going into Iraq. These are the same weapons that Syria turned over for destruction just a few years ago.

Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says
 

·
Psalm 23:4
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
As I posted in one of your numerous previous threads... research the Anfal genocide. You can debate whether it was our job to go after him, but Saddam's possession and use of chemical weapons is historical fact.

Soleimani and his role as the leader of Iran's proxy war atrocities was well known to anyone who even superficially studied Iran and the ME. Smoking him was not out of the blue unless your understanding of the world is derived from tabloid-esque MSM.

Comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the targeted assassination of the known leader of the worlds largest terror organization is a false equivalence and displays the profound ignorance and biased motivations of anyone who does so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
How about this: he was an evil sociopath and had it coming?

Has anyone considered that the two mullahs ahead of him in power set him up through a third party to save thier own lives? They had him out of the country and distracted for 5 years, but that is winding down. They were next.....but not any more.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top