General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsif killing Soleimani was to prevent an "imminent attack"
wouldn't our "bright" leaders conclude that such an attack is already on the books, ready to go without the need of the top commander?
unblock
(52,318 posts)question everything
(47,535 posts)And he really said this on all the Sunday shows.
unblock
(52,318 posts)But their actions suggest otherwise.
question everything
(47,535 posts)Not that they ever do, on all topics..
brewens
(13,620 posts)be some kind of preemptive strike or raid. You wouldn't just take out the mastermind and assume it was over.
brush
(53,868 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)they aren't that "bright"! Especially trump. They make up lies and when the get caught, the simply make up more lies.
The whole administration is full of unqualified people who are following a narcissistic leader who doesn't have a clue about what he needs to do.
essaynnc
(801 posts)I hope that many of us have figured out that he personally wasn't going to pull off the attack himself, but his now inflamed followers, if there is to be an attack, are the ones that would do it. I've been wondering the same thing for days, now!!
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,838 posts)OAITW r.2.0
(24,610 posts)But, most assuredly, there will be revenge attacks coming now.
marble falls
(57,208 posts)rickford66
(5,528 posts)They should have kidnapped and tortured him. Right ? I'm sure he would reveal all.
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)It's about risk mitigation, not "winning." And, as Trump proves almost every day, "winning" isn't always the same as actually winning.
Sometimes, the best way to mitigate a potential risk is to leave things as they are. Unless you have a tiny penis and need to prove something, of course -- otherwise, sometimes the best course is to leave things as they are.
==========
czarjak
(11,289 posts)Soleimani was going to carry out the attack personally. It's as clear as a cloudy day.