Anti-American democrats! Voters ...WAKE UP!
“I’ll tell you this: You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members, you’re not hearing China, you’re not hearing Russia,” said the Republican Haley on Fox’s “Sean Hannity Show.” “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and our Democrat presidential candidates.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/6/nikki-haley-democrat-leadership-only-ones-mourning/
@mott-the-hoople saidNot exactly sure what you’re whining about now...
it is very clear which side some of these posters are on, including you.
But even if I did think Soleimani was a heinous criminal whom by stopping would save lives, I still wouldn’t want him assassinated.
Accept your mistake, accept the bucket of shyte that’s gonna get poured over Americans and move on. Preferably as far away as possible.
@mott-the-hoople saidLies from partisan hacks like Haley on Hannity are a "dog bites man" non-story:
Anti-American democrats! Voters ...WAKE UP!
[b]“I’ll tell you this: You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members, you’re not hearing China, you’re not hearing Russia,” said the Republican Haley on Fox’s “Sean Hannity Show.” “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and our Democrat pr ...[text shortened]...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/6/nikki-haley-democrat-leadership-only-ones-mourning/
"Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Soleimani’s killing “grossly violates international law and should be condemned.”
He told Pompeo in a phone conversation late Friday that “the move by the U.S. is fraught with severe consequences for the peace of stability in the region and doesn’t help resolve complicated problems in the Middle East,” according to a ministry statement. Lavrov also urged Washington to “stop using unlawful methods of force” in trying to achieve its foreign policy goals and instead bring “any problems to the negotiating table.””
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/04/world/u-s-killing-irans-soleimani-global-reactions/#.XhSA0kdKiM8
The [Chinese] Foreign Ministry spokesperson initially offered the normal calls for restraint, but with an edge, singling out the United States, and expressing hope that all parties follow the “basic norms of international relations.” In case that wasn’t clear, Wang made it more explicit in a call to Zarif, complaining that the “dangerous US military operation violates the basic norms of international relations and will aggravate regional tensions and turbulence.”
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/chinas-response-to-the-soleimani-killing/
@mott-the-hoople saidIranian say the allegation against Soleimani are not true and challenged the US to show the evidence to the American people.
Anti-American democrats! Voters ...WAKE UP!
[b]“I’ll tell you this: You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members, you’re not hearing China, you’re not hearing Russia,” said the Republican Haley on Fox’s “Sean Hannity Show.” “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and our Democrat pr ...[text shortened]...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/6/nikki-haley-democrat-leadership-only-ones-mourning/
Predictably, they say it is classified information to withhold it from the public. I predicted that.
Classified info is released all the time with redactions. That is the least they could do. Anything less than that and they should be called on their lies!
@metal-brain saidI dont doubt Trump will release this info. I remember last time dems thought he wouldnt release info with the phone call...showed dems were lying.
Iranian say the allegation against Soleimani are not true and challenged the US to show the evidence to the American people.
Predictably, they say it is classified information to withhold it from the public. I predicted that.
Classified info is released all the time with redactions. That is the least they could do. Anything less than that and they should be called on their lies!
@shavixmir
“But even if I did think Soleimani was a heinous criminal whom by stopping would save lives, I still wouldn’t want him assassinated. ”
incredibly stupid statement.
-Removed-As a half wit like yourself was silent over Obama's foreign policy that saw him draw imaginary red lines in the sand in Syria, the subsequent genocide in Syria with mass migration to Europe, the Libya debacle with Benghazi as a climax, ISIS birthed and flourishing, Putin taking over the Ukraine as Obama did virtually nothing, etc.
Obama also assassinated hundreds of people with drones, some of them American citizens, but not a peep for partisan hack twits like yourself. Yet all you talk about is Trump being an idiot and wearing underpants?
At least he knows how to use e-mail.
What an unequivocal lunatic of a moron you are!
https://www.mic.com/articles/45701/how-many-people-has-barack-obama-killed-with-drones
It’s a good thing the administration is bending to public demands for greater transparency about its drone policy because the more we hear, the more reason we have to believe that the kind of hit reported this week — that of Wali ur-Rehman, the alleged Taliban #2 man in Pakistan — is the exception rather than the rule.
“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top Al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” President Obama is reported in this week’s New York Times to have said in response to criticism that he’s soft on terrorism.
The reference to “top Al-Qaeda leaders” echoes a statement by then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, now CIA Director John Brennan in an April 30, 2012, speech at the Wilson Center: “A significant threat might be posed by an individual who is an operational leader of Al-Qaida or one of its associated forces.”
In addition to the “top Al-Qaeda leaders” theme, the president, in a speech last week, noted several further constraints on drone operations: “Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target Al-Qaeda and its associated forces ... America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists; ... our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty ... (W)e act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured ....”
All good news. But against this backdrop, one would conclude that a mere handful of drone strikes have targeted a few dozen people who, like Wali ur-Rehman, are known, specific, senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban and associated forces, that they were plotting imminent violent attacks on Americans and couldn’t be captured before conducting their attack. One would also conclude that civilian casualties have been few.
There’s just one problem. The actual number of drone deaths is at least 200 times the "22 top Al-Qaeda leaders plus Bin Laden" noted by President Obama. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) recently floated the number 4,700. Independent studies by both U.S. and British investigators have confirmed numbers in that ballpark, with many of those being “collateral damage.” But let’s, for the sake of simplifying the arithmetic, take a conservative round number of 4,000 deaths against a hypothetical 300 senior operational enemy leaders. After all, President Obama did not say that we have killed only 23 people with drones.
Here are three possible reasons for the discrepancy.
1. The number 4,000 is wrong and the correct number killed is more like 300. Given the mounds of existing evidence about the number of drone strikes since 9/11, the number 300 doesn’t pass the straight face test. The New America Foundation tallied 355 strikes in Pakistan alone, many involving multiple deaths. Assuming all the 300 senior operational leaders were killed in Pakistan strikes (certainly not the case), and assuming near-zero tolerance for civilian casualties, the average number of strikes to kill one person would be a hard-to-believe 1.2.
2. 300 senior operational leaders were targeted and the remaining 3,700 casualties are collateral damage. This absurd assumption would mean, on average, an excess of 100 civilian casualties for each target exists. While civilian casualties are not prohibited by the law of armed conflict and there’s no precise formula for an acceptable ratio of targets to civilians killed, there is a rule of proportionality and an average of 100 civilians killed for each senior operational leader would clearly place the program in the category of horrible policy, if not war crimes.
I've decided to describe all the partisan half wits that criticize Trump over this but remained silent during Obama's reign of ineptitude and terror as Iranian colluders because they obviously are not upset with the violence as they were silent during Obama, no, they just would rather propagandize for Iran just to destroy Trump.
@mott-the-hoople saidIt’s called international law, you retard.
@shavixmir
“But even if I did think Soleimani was a heinous criminal whom by stopping would save lives, I still wouldn’t want him assassinated. ”
incredibly stupid statement.