• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: why did Trump order the attack to kill Soleimani?

Why did Trump order the attack to kill Soleimani?

  • High profile target who killed Americans, had to act, totally unrelated to Trump's domestic problems

    Votes: 17 31.5%
  • To distract from Trump's domestic trouble and to rally the country behind him for re-election

    Votes: 23 42.6%
  • A combination of both options 1 and 2

    Votes: 14 25.9%

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
What exactly was the statement that sounded like a threat to the president's family? Can you give us a precise quote?

GN2n:

I heard it in translation on TV news last week. It was either on the CBC or possibly CTV news here in Canada. I'll see if I can find it or a transcript.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Sure, it was. The neo-cons and Trump supporters wrongly believe that the American people will rally behind Trump on Iran: they are showing they won't.

You might want to check back in the thread and see who mentioned it first.
 
Iran will attack, yes, it will be aimed at SA and will claim a few Americans as well. They will be saying "we can reach out and touch you, too."

And then our next strike will be government buildings in downtown Tehran. I don’t think Iran really wants that to happen.
 
Yeah, that's what the Dems thought last time. Things change.
The Democrats thought they had it wrapped in 2016. That much is true. The fundamental thing that has not changed is the Republican candidate.

Forget all the analysis. What are the Democrats doing? More to the point, what are they not doing (hint: that they were elected to do)? The Democrats have already decided Trump is unbeatable as a candidate.
 
What consequences? The left giving more aid and comfort to my country's enemies? The left denigrating my country even more?

No worries, we expect the left to behave Un-American.

As far as Iranian retaliation, they have been killing us already, and we have been extremely patient. After a while it's time to strike back.

What if Iran starts directing terror attacks on American soil? You realize that our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria got Americans killed over here, right?
 
What exactly was the statement that sounded like a threat to the president's family? Can you give us a precise quote?

---------

On another note, the more I read about this, the more I think that the Iranian Ayatollahs will huff and puff but will do little. They probably will launch some sort of attack on Saudi Arabia and seek to include in the victims one or two Americans just to say they retaliated and just to save face, but I doubt they will launch a frontal and direct attack on American assets home or abroad. They probably know that if they engage in a direct war against the United States, it's the end of their regime.

So I'm not sure that this will end up being "at the expense of the nation."

GN2n:

The best I could do is find a MEMRI article and translation of the speech back in the summer of 2018. It was outages of this speech which I saw on the news. The article contains a video with translation of the speech. But be careful. MEMRI has an agenda and its translations often paint certain sources as worse then they really are. I don't speak Farsi so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation. For what it's worth please find it below:

Qasem Soleimani To Trump: We Are A Nation Of Martyrdom | MEMRI

I was not aware that the speech was a year and half old (July 26, 2018) when I saw it on the TV news and only figured out its age tonight when I found this.

So my hypothesis may be weaker than I thought. But I'll put it out there just on the off chance it could be right.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
GN2n:

The best I could do is find a MEMRI article and translation of the speech back in the summer of 2018. It was outages of this speech which I saw on the news. The article contains a video with translation of the speech. But be careful. MEMRI has an agenda and its translations often paint certain sources as worse then they really are. I don't speak Farsi so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation. For what it's worth please find it below:

Qasem Soleimani To Trump: We Are A Nation Of Martyrdom | MEMRI

I was not aware that the speech was a year and half old (July 26, 2018) when I saw it on the TV news and only figured out its age tonight when I found this.

So my hypothesis may be weaker than I thought. But I'll put it out there just on the off chance it could be right.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Thanks. But what a bunch of crap, that speech. These terrorists talk tough, and pretend to be so much more powerful than the United States! It's laughable. I hope that in the last five seconds of his sorry existence if he saw the missile coming, he realized that all the tough talk "we are near you" backfired on him: we are near you too, moron. Our missiles are five seconds from you. Four. Three. Two. One. Boom.

--------------

I don't see any veiled reference to the president's family, and this was from a year and a half years ago, so, no, I don't think your hypothesis holds water.
 
See this link:

Iran Has Vowed Revenge Against the U.S. For Killing Its Shadow Commander | Time

On one hand, like the analysis I just posted indicates, Soleimani was directly or indirectly involved in the killing of at least 603 US servicemen, and in the injury of countless others. So, if a target of this magnitude is acquired by intelligence services, in a vulnerable situation (a convey traveling away from the airport on an open road) it is conceivable that a president will order a strike. Obama did as much to Osama bin Laden, and Trump did as much to al-Baghdadi; not many Americans lamented these two strikes. So, in this regard, the timing may have been coincidental; someone who displaces a lot around the region and is surrounded by a security apparatus doesn't offer to his adversaries too many opportunities to be taken down, and when one arises, from the logistical and strategical standpoints, one must act immediately, lest the target moves and can no longer be acquired. If this is what happened, the attack may have been unrelated to Trump's domestic troubles.


On the other hand, we know that Trump is a master of distraction, and often comes up with something to disrupt the news cycle when ne needs to do it. When Obama was up for re-election, Trump expressed the opinion that Obama might start a war with Iran to get re-elected... therefore, this kind of thought has demonstrably been in Trump's mind at least once in the past. So, maybe this target was acquired before but the president and/or the Pentagon advised for restraint, not to escalate the already tense situation in the Middle East, but now that Trump is in some trouble, maybe he thought "f... that, I need a distraction and I need to rally support behind me" and gave the green light.
.
And then, of course, it might have been a combination of both.

I'm posting this poll to see what people here think about what is behind Trump's decision


As we have been told, there was good intelligence given that states he was in the process of more terrorists attacks which could of killed hundreds of Americans. The President did the right thing, by taking him out, before a worse scenerio came to pass. Time will tell about the "intelligence" which was given....want to see it myself.

It is the Presidents job to protect American citizens, whether at home or abroad.....worrying about the reaction of Iran would be the problem of someone who is afraid to act to save american lives. Maybe he should of apologized and sent a couple of pallets of cash over to Iran....would this make the left happy, lol.

Trump has been reluctant to act towards Iran, but when citizens were killed and hurt, that's it....time to act presidential....and protect its citizens...and he diid.
 
As we have been told, there was good intelligence given that states he was in the process of more terrorists attacks which could of killed hundreds of Americans. The President did the right thing, by taking him out, before a worse scenerio came to pass. Time will tell about the "intelligence" which was given....want to see it myself.

It is the Presidents job to protect American citizens, whether at home or abroad.....worrying about the reaction of Iran would be the problem of someone who is afraid to act to save american lives. Maybe he should of apologized and sent a couple of pallets of cash over to Iran....would this make the left happy, lol.

Trump has been reluctant to act towards Iran, but when citizens were killed and hurt, that's it....time to act presidential....and protect its citizens...and he diid.

The typical "Reichstag fire" crap, just get over it, you Trump people, but you will fall for anything. The West is not going to let us do more than throw a few missiles and bombs while the Iranians blow some people up. Trump is simply unable to stop Iran or North Korea for that matter.

And now Iraq is holding secret negotiations with Iran vis a vis the American presence.
 
As we have been told, there was good intelligence given that states he was in the process of more terrorists attacks which could of killed hundreds of Americans. The President did the right thing, by taking him out, before a worse scenerio came to pass. Time will tell about the "intelligence" which was given....want to see it myself.

It is the Presidents job to protect American citizens, whether at home or abroad.....worrying about the reaction of Iran would be the problem of someone who is afraid to act to save american lives. Maybe he should of apologized and sent a couple of pallets of cash over to Iran....would this make the left happy, lol.

Trump has been reluctant to act towards Iran, but when citizens were killed and hurt, that's it....time to act presidential....and protect its citizens...and he diid.

Makes sense.
 
As we have been told, there was good intelligence given that states he was in the process of more terrorists attacks which could of killed hundreds of Americans. The President did the right thing, by taking him out, before a worse scenerio came to pass. Time will tell about the "intelligence" which was given....want to see it myself.

It is the Presidents job to protect American citizens, whether at home or abroad.....worrying about the reaction of Iran would be the problem of someone who is afraid to act to save american lives. Maybe he should of apologized and sent a couple of pallets of cash over to Iran....would this make the left happy, lol.

Trump has been reluctant to act towards Iran, but when citizens were killed and hurt, that's it....time to act presidential....and protect its citizens...and he diid.

OK, I first said "makes sense" but then I read this, and it seems like people in the administration dispute the notion that Soleimani was plotting an "imminent" attack.

Pentagon officials reportedly presented Trump with the option of killing a top Iranian commander, not thinking he'''d actually do it

Top US military officials presented President Donald Trump with a number of potential responses to Iranian-backed violence in Iraq in recent days, but were stunned when he chose the most radical option, The New York Times reported Saturday evening.

The officials reportedly put the option of killing Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on the table, thinking he wouldn't choose such an extreme solution.

The newspaper reported that it's commonplace for Pentagon officials to present president with extreme solutions so that other options appear more reasonable by comparison.

Though Trump initially rejected the option of assassinating Soleimani on December 28, he grew increasingly furious when Iranian-backed militiamen attacked the US Embassy in Iraq, The Times reported, citing Pentagon and Trump administration officials.

Eventually, on January 2, Trump shocked Pentagon officials by opting to kill Soleimani.

Later, the Trump administration would defend the strikes by saying Soleimani had been plotting an "imminent" attack.

But The Times reported that there were disagreements within the administration about whether that was the case.

One US official told The Times there wasn't evidence of an imminent attack, and that Soleimani appeared to be going about "business as usual."
 
The typical "Reichstag fire" crap, just get over it, you Trump people, but you will fall for anything. The West is not going to let us do more than throw a few missiles and bombs while the Iranians blow some people up. Trump is simply unable to stop Iran or North Korea for that matter.

And now Iraq is holding secret negotiations with Iran vis a vis the American presence.


Lol, poor dems and leftists.....if Trump was helping Jesus Christ cross the street you'd say, "look he is leading Jesus to the middle of the street, hoping he will get run over". If you don't like the elected President of the USA, please feel free to simply leave. There are plenty of countries willing to accept your presence.

Supporting terrorists and Iran over the duly elected President is utterly shameful, imo. When we find out the intelligence that the President used in protecting many American lives, it still will not matter to leftist brainwashed parrots. Get over it already, Queen Hillary LOST....thank goodness.
 
OK, I first said "makes sense" but then I read this, and it seems like people in the administration dispute the notion that Soleimani was plotting an "imminent" attack.

Pentagon officials reportedly presented Trump with the option of killing a top Iranian commander, not thinking he'''d actually do it


We'll see....don't trust news media much nowadays. They have lost my respect. I hope at least that the President had good probable cause for this action.....seeing the pics that he was at the scene in the attack at our embassy....this tells me something was up....just have to wait and see.
 
Pompeo: US is now targeting Iran'''s `actual decision-makers'''

Now Pompeo is implying that we will continue to go after other Iranian leaders. Again, I'm conflicted about it. I've posted multiple times against Iran and its sponsorship of terrorism, said I consider unacceptable and too risky for the West to allow them to ever have deliverable nukes, and said that one American life lost is one too many and Soleimani was responsible for between 600 and 1,100 American deaths so I shed no tears for him.

But we need to be careful not to get into war crimes. We haven't too many allies left, if any. Trump needs to be a bit careful. Is he capable of being careful and thoughtful? Unfortunately, I don't think so.
 
Not in the slightest. Your guy Trump is not the guy to carry this off. Good luck to him, but I do expect the worst.

At least he will avoid sending the mullahs 140 billion dollars in cash, laundered through the international banking system.
 
It's our country, thank you.



So the solution is to give them even more reason to kill us. Fantastic work.

Evidently your solution is just to sit back and beg the Iranians not to kill us. It's like willingly handing over your lunch money to a school yard bully.
 
It's my country too, genius.



Did Bush take it in the ass too?

Effectively yes. Both Bush and Obama kept track of the Iranian general's whereabouts as well as the number of Americas he had killed, but were afraid to take him out for fear of escalation. At some point, we have to stop fearing the nation equivalent of school yard bullies.
 
Perhaps thinking of your fellow Americans as “enemies” is part of the problem

James probably thinks that everyone who refused to vote for the hildabeast is an enemy of America.
 
Lol, poor dems and leftists.....if Trump was helping Jesus Christ cross the street you'd say, "look he is leading Jesus to the middle of the street, hoping he will get run over". If you don't like the elected President of the USA, please feel free to simply leave. There are plenty of countries willing to accept your presence.

Supporting terrorists and Iran over the duly elected President is utterly shameful, imo. When we find out the intelligence that the President used in protecting many American lives, it still will not matter to leftist brainwashed parrots. Get over it already, Queen Hillary LOST....thank goodness.

You think Trump would ever help anyone if he did not personally benefit. Hillary lost and who cares, try to respond without bringing up Obama or Hillary.
 
What if Iran starts directing terror attacks on American soil? You realize that our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria got Americans killed over here, right?

If Iran attacks on American soil, my bet would be all of their refineries will go up in smoke and at least half of their navy will be sunk. How stupid does Iran want to get in their efforts at retaliation?
 
If Iran attacks on American soil, my bet would be all of their refineries will go up in smoke and at least half of their navy will be sunk. How stupid does Iran want to get in their efforts at retaliation?

Iran doesn’t need to physically attack on our soil. Iran is a lot of things but stupid is not one of them, cyber attacks on our soil is one thing they would likely do.
 
OK, I first said "makes sense" but then I read this, and it seems like people in the administration dispute the notion that Soleimani was plotting an "imminent" attack.

Pentagon officials reportedly presented Trump with the option of killing a top Iranian commander, not thinking he'''d actually do it

The press is great at sensationalizing insider axe-grinders, a self-selected group of those who lost the internal debate. So given the record of the press, I'd say there is only a 50-50 chance of there being substantial truth to these anonymous sources.

And then there is another view, also provided by a reputable mainstream source, Reuters:

Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq - Reuters

Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq

(Reuters) - In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi’ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad.

The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.

...

Interviews with the Iraqi security sources and Shi’ite militia commanders offer a rare glimpse of how Soleimani operated in Iraq, which he once told a Reuters reporter he knew like the back of his hand.

Two weeks before the October meeting, Soleimani ordered Iranian Revolutionary Guards to move more sophisticated weapons - such as Katyusha rockets and shoulder-fired missiles that could bring down helicopters - to Iraq through two border crossings, the militia commanders and Iraqi security sources told Reuters.

At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases. He ordered Kataib Hezbollah - a force founded by Muhandis and trained in Iran - to direct the new plan, said the militia sources briefed on the meetings.

Soleimani told them such a group “would be difficult to detect by the Americans,” one of the militia sources told Reuters.

Before the attacks, the U.S. intelligence community had reason to believe that Soleimani was involved in “late stage” planning to strike Americans in multiple countries, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, U.S. officials told Reuters Friday on condition of anonymity. One senior U.S. official said Soleimani had supplied advanced weaponry to Kataib Hezbollah.


According to the article Soleimani intended to provoke the US into a military response so as to take the focus off increasing protests against Iranian presence and create a public backlash. He obviously succeeded too well, it cost him is life.
 
Effectively yes. Both Bush and Obama kept track of the Iranian general's whereabouts as well as the number of Americas he had killed, but were afraid to take him out for fear of escalation. At some point, we have to stop fearing the nation equivalent of school yard bullies.

How many school yard bullies do you know are capable of killing thousands?
 
Evidently your solution is just to sit back and beg the Iranians not to kill us. It's like willingly handing over your lunch money to a school yard bully.

Who said anything about begging? Are you so blinded by partisanship you can't see anything but the extremes?
 
Back
Top Bottom