Originally posted by Surtur
You have to appreciate the sheer insanity of TDS. The same people who whined that Trump retaliated against Iran over an attack that killed an American are now running their mouths over him not retaliating over an attack that killed no Americans.Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Ilhan Omar is accusing him of trying to starve the Iranian people with sanctions so I guess those are wrong too so basically we can't do anything but cuck to Iranian aggression and when it comes to deranged lefties here they will support the opposite of whatever action trump takes lol. We've seen that by the sudden shift from dinging Trump for an attack to dinging for a lack of one. But remember they were super alarmed over a potential WW3 lol.
Oh and btw, ilhan omar supports BDS, but whines about sanctions on Iran.
Well said and spot on, Surtur. 👆
Originally posted by Surtur
You seem to think I'm saying I want them to do more. I'm not, I'm merely pointing out when we had an embassy attack where 1 guy died(you just linked to it) and trump retaliated people dinged him for doing so. Then trump told iran if they do anything else they will regret it. Then they do something and it results in minimal damage and zero deaths so trump says fine I won't do anything else it ends here you didn't us basically no harm. Now the narrative is "trump has made us look weak". It's crazy.You see certain people here were expecting dead troops and hoping to exploit them to go after trump and it didn't pan out so now you have the narrative I just told you about.
Yes, no matter what happens or doesn't happen they wanna use it somehow to criticize Trump. Trump has broken all of them lol.
Originally posted by Surtur
You seem to think I'm saying I want them to do more.
No Im actually just curious what the argument is for the assassination. Still feels like im missing something.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Who knew DT was going to end up being a Iranian sympathizer
Whats wrong with being an Iranian? Unlike you im not a racist. Not an I easily brainwashed by whatever propaganda my government sells.
Originally posted by Surtur
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/01/02/photos-reveal-damage-to-us-embassy-in-baghdad-following-attack-by-supporters-of-iran-backed-militia/
It doesnt mention anyone being killed in that one.
Originally posted by Surtur
You already know 1 person died. Dude, cut the shit and state your point. Don't play games.
Why are you losing it? I thought the contractor guy died in an attack on a military base.
Im trying to get what the justification was for killing a big Iranian general, and it seems it was this 1 contractor who died in an embassy.
As for my point, I gotta say though in terms of collateral damage, 1 civilian doesnt sound like the end of the world.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Why are you losing it? I thought the contractor guy died in an attack on a military base.Im trying to get what the justification was for killing a big Iranian general, and it seems it was this 1 contractor who died in an embassy.
As for my point, I gotta say though in terms of collateral damage, 1 civilian doesnt sound like the end of the world.
That's not me losing it, but this is readily available info.
But hey, you know 1 died. How many would need to die before it's justified, in your opinion? You clearly have a number in mind since you seem to feel 1 isn't enough. Gimme.
Originally posted by Surtur
That's not me losing it, but this is readily available info.But hey, you know 1 died. How many would need to die before it's justified, in your opinion?
I thought collateral damage doesnt count as terrorism. If it does then I highly doubt you want to count numbers of civilians who have died on both sides.
Would be very different if that one civilian was specifically targeted. Like the kind of shit ISIS does.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I thought collateral damage doesnt count as terrorism. If it does then I highly doubt you want to count numbers of civilians who have died on both sides.Would be very different if that one civilian was specifically targeted. Like the kind of shit ISIS does.
You know what? You balked at the notion this guy was even a terrorist, I'm not sure why I'm entertaining your opinion here. Especially with you dodging my question.
Moving on.
Actually seems like youre avoiding discussing it. Perhaps because youre having a hard time justifying your stance.
And im pretty sure I addressed Your question.
But it seems youre only willing to debate if I start the conversation off accepting the guy was a random terrorist and not a state military official. A bad state, sure.. But still a state with heavy influence around the world, and whose people we were not actually at war with.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Why are you losing it? I thought the contractor guy died in an attack on a military base.Im trying to get what the justification was for killing a big Iranian general, and it seems it was this 1 contractor who died in an embassy.
As for my point, I gotta say though in terms of collateral damage, 1 civilian doesnt sound like the end of the world.
Did Surt lie and the contractor that was killed wasn't part of the embassy attack?