Reply With Quote
dem DMC backflips
We are given a specific number of embassies and the evidence:
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said he "didn't see" specific evidence that top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was planning attacks on four U.S. embassies, but said he believed such attacks would have occurred.
"The president didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said was he believed," Esper said Sunday on "Face the Nation." "I didn't see one, with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is that I shared the president's view that probably — my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country."
Bunch of liars.
Next time just say 6, seems like a good number.
ok... Why do you believe it’s 4 embassies and not 8?
Trash assassinating Salamander makes US military, embassies, overseas personnel LESS safe.
So you have evidence to the contrary?
You make the claim, you defend it.
Dont be an idiot.
Face it: you started off with the belief it was "wag the dog". Everything since then has been, to you, the administration trying to disprove that, and if that's the case they have failed. I haven't defended anything. I trust people I know who are in the area more than a bunch of liberal arts majors on a basketball forum. The truth will out, but it might be lost in the noise of propaganda from all sides, with shills and hater and Great Floating TurdMark Esper is the Secretary of Defense. Is there any point at which this becomes so ridiculous that even you won't compromise your integrity to defend it?
You called liar. Calling someone a liar means you have evidence to the contrary. I didn't make any claims.
No calling someone a liar means they are making an effort to deceive.
You....
Going Mrs. Crutchfield again when you can’t defend the subject.
No calling someone a liar means they are making an effort to deceive.
You....
Going Mrs. Crutchfield again when you can’t defend the subject.
I got stung by bees .
I got stung by four bees.
Do I need to walk you through this?
You're leaving out the "untrue statement" part of the definition. Explain what the untrue statement is, and how you know it's untrue.
I don't need to defend anything to see you haven't made a case yet.You....
Going Mrs. Crutchfield again when you can’t defend the subject.
Yes please walk me through the bees analogy.
when you compare the two statements the second implies you have evidence to a specific number.
the trump admin. used a specific number yet has zero evidence to back up the claim which could easily be given.
This implies they are attempting to deceive
Its really not that difficult, YOU.
btw I have called you Mrs. Crutchfield numerous times due to your aversion to facts when you make stupid statements and fall back on language (on a fckn message board which I find humorous)
I don't give 2 s about your silly ad homs.
If you had evidence I was only stung by 2 bees but I insisted it was 4, you'd want to see the evidence. The problem is you don't have any evidence to counter, you just didn't see evidence to support a claim. That doesn't equate to "liar". Not by your own definition.
Words matter in discussions like these. The word "believe" is being used both as a the 1st and 2nd definitions of the word.
be·lieve
/bəˈlēv/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing
1.
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of. (this implies "convinced" which implies "based on evidence")
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
Similar:
be convinced by
trust
accept the statement of (someone) as true.
"he didn't believe her or didn't want to know"
have faith, especially religious faith.
"there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe"
feel sure that (someone) is capable of a particular action.
"I wouldn't have believed it of Lois—what an extraordinary woman!"
2.
hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose. (this is what you seem think Esper is implying)
"I believe we've already met"
In order to change your view and accept the 1st definition, you want to be looped into the inner circle of trust, so you can double check to make sure there was justifiable cause to kill a known terrorist. You won't be given that access, so you'll just continue accusing the administration of lying.
Oddly, Trump cannot make a phone call to another country without someone in the room ratting him out, but you think the entire group of Joint Chiefs, JSOC and SOCOM would all fall in line with a wag the dog move. Apparently you have the ability to believe improbable things without evidence, but need evidence to believe probable things - depending on who said it.
Ex-US intel officer: Pompeo 'lying through his teeth' on Iran
Told ya
^This is certifiably awful. The bolded starts it all off. Its absolutely wrong.
I will again state the obvious.
When you give a specific number it implies you have evidence for THAT number instead of just using embass(ies).
When called on it, you do not give up the evidence that led you to this number instead of just a plural.
Because then you might have to name embassies. That would lead to more questions that involve the state dept and the dreaded DEEP STATE that has not been willing to lie along with you on everything.
Just say, if we gave you the names of the four embassies it could compromise intelligence en ies. Then watch the backlash. Or actually probably get out of it. But Trump, as we know, is a blurter with his minions having to do an incredibly bad jobs of explaining (Just like you are trying to do)
Intentional deception in this situation is lying.
You ham that up by making a false statement to begin with..
Its not working. You really are playing a very poor sophist.
You really dont want to get philosophical on the word belief with me.
And you really dont want to get into how the brain might work to determine what to "believe" actually means neurologically.
so again, you can stop.
Nature Nurture boy.
Oh yeah I forgot. Your also the guy who believes wind speed is measured in Braille.
Oh my. I believe you invoked the art of personal attack in making an argument further up the page.
Again, your hypocrisy must make your skeleton ache if you have a conscience. philo
‘Mark Esperanto is not a serious person’:
Defense secretary pounded for ‘astoundingly embarrassing’ Sunday show interviews
Esper insisted Trump “never said there was specific intelligence to four different embassies.”
“What the president said was he believed it probably could have been,” Espert told Tapper.
“He didn’t cite intelligence.”
Esper admitted he “didn’t see” evidence showing a plan to attack 4 U.S. embassies.
The whiplash wasn’t lost on viewers, who took to Twitter to express disbelief over Esper’s performance — and
questioned why anyone would believe the defense secretary in light of the Trump administration’s shifting cover for the attack.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/mark-esper-is-not-a-serious-person-defense-secretary-pounded-for-astoundingly-embarrassing-sunday-show-interviews/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Donald Trump’s Iran Problem
The killing of General Qassem Suleimani has undermined the Trump Administration’s top goals in the Islamic Republic.
the Reagan Administration ordered Marine peacekeepers in Beirut to open fire on Muslim militias in the mountains overlooking the city.
U.S. ships fired more than three hundred rounds of seventy-pound s s. Geraghty later wrote, “As the sun set at the end of a tumultuous day, I remarked to members of my staff that my gut instinct tells me the Corps is going to pay in blood for this decision.”
On October 23rd, a suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with twelve thousand pounds of explosives into the peacekeepers’ barracks.
Two hundred and forty-one Americans died.
The largest loss for the corps in a single incident since Iwo Jima was
carried out by a Lebanese group that became Hezbollah—
but it was orchestrated by Iran.
“The Iranians’ goal was to remove the marines and Western influence,” Geraghty recalled last week. “And they did.”
The United States proved in 1983 that it had a tactical advantage,
but Iran proved that it had a more wide-ranging strategy—as it has demonstrated repeatedly through the years.
The next four U.S. Presidents avoided a military showdown with the Islamic Republic,
even as its strategic advance across the region deepened.
The risks and the potential complications were deemed too great.
Trump’s decision has already had sweeping consequences—for the regional military balance, the campaign against isis and Al Qaeda, Iran’s nuclear program, and the unnerving political dysfunction in the Middle East.
The U.S.-led campaign against isis—which still has fourteen thousand fighters in Iraq and Syria—was suspended.
The Trump Administration’s top two goals in Iran have also been undermined.
For decades, successive Presidents have sought to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.
two days after the killing of Suleimani, Iran said that it would no longer limit the number of centrifuges for enriching uranium.
For two years, the Trump Administration has also exerted “maximum pressure,” through sanctions and isolation, to force new concessions from Tehran.
the assassination of Suleimani reignited nationalism in Iran;
The United States has figured out how to react to a militia or to kill a commander, but it still hasn’t figured out how, creatively or proactively, to deal with the nation of Iran.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...term=TNY_Daily
uva job, Trashie (and bags Pompeo and Pence), what bunch of incompetent, ignorant wankers
Being evasive != lying.
You haven't proved anyone lied.
Everything else you said was just autistic screeching and bloviating.
When you have something meaningful to say, let me know.
American Impotence:
Trump's Assassination of Soleimani Masks Broad Retreat
No amount of propaganda can paint the assassination of Soleimani as more beneficial than damaging to American interests.
The assassination of Soleimani was itself a symptom of how limited American power has become in the Middle East.
When you have to resort to missiles fired from an MQ-9 Reaper to kill a state leader, you're signaling raw power,
but you're also signaling your bankrupt diplomacy. It shows.
The assassination will cost Iran tactically, but anyone is replaceable.
Soleimani's loss was, if anything, to Iran's strategic advantage,
a confirmation of its status as the power to be reckoned with in the Middle East
rather than as a nation anywhere near its heels.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...?cd-origin=rss
Senators Say Laura Ingraham Got More Details About Soleimani Killing Than They Did
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/senators-laura-ingraham-more-details-soleimani-killing-embassies.html
you are overthinking it - he has to distract every time he gets caught
3 years of this and you are still wracking your brain to force a square peg in a round hole -
all in the effort to turn the lies of the liar to fit your adoration and support of your great white hope
he got caught
he created a distraction at any cost as he has done for 3 years
you are on the right track here ^
but it gets worse-
esper tried that same on meet the press and when Todd followed up with
”were those four embassies warned and did have to follow protocol to protect from these attacks- because we have reached out and none of them were warned according to our reporting”
esper began his tap- dance routine on cue: “im not going to go into sensitive info.....”
even though dip liar in chief had already unclassified those particular lies lolol
"you are overthinking it"
rightwingnutjobs don't think, they run on bias, emotion, incuriosity, dictates of their thought dictators in the right wing hate media
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
