JUST IN: SHOCK ADAM SCHIFF REVELATION – THIS IS SICK

[rangerrebew]

 
JUST IN: SHOCK ADAM SCHIFF REVELATION – THIS IS SICK

(Gateway Pundit) – House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) called for Congressional hearings into Trump’s drone strike that killed top Iran commander and terrorist Qassem Soleimani.
 
The Democrat-led House has made it clear that they will meddle in every single foreign policy decision President Trump makes.

From Ukraine to Iran to North Korea, the legislative branch is now overreaching and claiming the President does not have the authority to call strikes against a hostile enemy.

http://dailyheadlines.net/just-in-shock-adam-schiff-revelation-this-is-sick/?utm_source=RR%20Indie%20Minute%20-email2%20&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:5138254&utm_campaign=1/8%20DH.NET%206AM

[Chosen Daughter]

I supported the strike killing Soleimani but it was what followed that was just bat crap crazy.  I am a Conservative and never against military strikes when necessary.  It is Trump who welcomes the left to question his actions.  He comes out threatening cultural sites.  Also saying that 52 stands for the 52 Iran hostages in Iran.  Makes a person wonder why he is bringing up the 1980 Iran Hostage situation?  Made me question whether this is imminent or just in general a I hate Iran for everything they have done from 1980 until now.

Instead of side tracking from imminent threats I would suggest that the President stick to the issue.  Also don't threaten cultural sites.  Those are World assets and its only fitting of terrorists to do those things.  We know they do because it is exactly what ISIS did.  We are not terrorists.  If the President wants to have full support he should stick to the truth and not act like he is insane.

[Cyber Liberty]

I supported the strike killing Soleimani but it was what followed that was just bat crap crazy.  I am a Conservative and never against military strikes when necessary.  It is Trump who welcomes the left to question his actions.  He comes out threatening cultural sites.  Also saying that 52 stands for the 52 Iran hostages in Iran.  Makes a person wonder why he is bringing up the 1980 Iran Hostage situation?  Made me question whether this is imminent or just in general a I hate Iran for everything they have done from 1980 until now.

Instead of side tracking from imminent threats I would suggest that the President stick to the issue.  Also don't threaten cultural sites.  Those are World assets and its only fitting of terrorists to do those things.  We know they do because it is exactly what ISIS did.  We are not terrorists.  If the President wants to have full support he should stick to the truth and not act like he is insane.

I knew that given time and ample prep from the biased press, you would come back around and find a reason to blame Trump for Iran.  Please name one of the 52 "cultural" sites you're so worked up about.  Just one would be fine.

[Smokin Joe]

I knew that given time and ample prep from the biased press, you would come back around and find a reason to blame Trump for Iran.  Please name one of the 52 "cultural" sites you're so worked up about.  Just one would be fine.

IIRC, that was Military and cultural sites.

In other words, don't start anything, or we're going to hit you where it hurts. Seems like a fair warning, and unless and until he has to follow up on that not cause for hand wringing.


Does anyone think for a minute that the Iranians, given the ability, wouldn't target targets of cultural but not military value in the US? Get real. Islamists have a long history of destroying anything they can't/won't claim, or that offends their 'sensibilities', which is a very broad spectrum, indeed.

[Wingnut]

I knew that given time and ample prep from the biased press, you would come back around and find a reason to blame Trump for Iran.  Please name one of the 52 "cultural" sites you're so worked up about.  Just one would be fine.

She's like that product "Franks Hot sauce" She puts her shit on everything.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I supported the strike killing Soleimani but it was what followed that was just bat crap crazy.  I am a Conservative and never against military strikes when necessary.  It is Trump who welcomes the left to question his actions.  He comes out threatening cultural sites.  Also saying that 52 stands for the 52 Iran hostages in Iran.  Makes a person wonder why he is bringing up the 1980 Iran Hostage situation?  Made me question whether this is imminent or just in general a I hate Iran for everything they have done from 1980 until now.

Instead of side tracking from imminent threats I would suggest that the President stick to the issue.  Also don't threaten cultural sites.  Those are World assets and its only fitting of terrorists to do those things.  We know they do because it is exactly what ISIS did.  We are not terrorists.  If the President wants to have full support he should stick to the truth and not act like he is insane.

Then you must have hated Reagan's "We begin bombing in five minutes".

And I have no idea why you do not include Iran's actions in 1979 in its US embassy takeover.  What was worse that that from your perspective?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

IIRC, that was Military and cultural sites.

In other words, don't start anything, or we're going to hit you where it hurts. Seems like a fair warning, and unless and until he has to follow up on that not cause for hand wringing.


Does anyone think for a minute that the Iranians, given the ability, wouldn't target targets of cultural but not military value in the US? Get real. Islamists have a long history of destroying anything they can't/won't claim, or that offends their 'sensibilities', which is a very broad spectrum, indeed.

The twin towers were not a military target either but a cultural and business one for terrorists as well.

Reality escapes those who do not confront the evil of those who wish to destroy us.  War means you hit with the intention to win, not shirk.

Trump with his actions and words lives free of charge in the minds of those who oppose him and now both the Iranians and the libs which support them cannot get him outta there.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I supported the strike killing Soleimani but it was what followed that was just bat crap crazy.  I am a Conservative and never against military strikes when necessary.  It is Trump who welcomes the left to question his actions.  He comes out threatening cultural sites.  Also saying that 52 stands for the 52 Iran hostages in Iran.  Makes a person wonder why he is bringing up the 1980 Iran Hostage situation?  Made me question whether this is imminent or just in general a I hate Iran for everything they have done from 1980 until now.

Instead of side tracking from imminent threats I would suggest that the President stick to the issue.  Also don't threaten cultural sites.  Those are World assets and its only fitting of terrorists to do those things.  We know they do because it is exactly what ISIS did.  We are not terrorists.  If the President wants to have full support he should stick to the truth and not act like he is insane.

@Chosen Daughter

How many cultural sites did we actually attack?

And if your answer is "zero", ask yourself why Trump might have threatened to attack cultural sites when we didn't actually do so.

[GtHawk]

I knew that given time and ample prep from the biased press, you would come back around and find a reason to blame Trump for Iran.  Please name one of the 52 "cultural" sites you're so worked up about.  Just one would be fine.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Trumps words sites important to Iranian culture? And wasn't that immediately twisted into Iranian cultural sites by the liberals, the media and hand wringers with their panties in a twist?

[Cyber Liberty]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Trumps words sites important to Iranian culture? And wasn't that immediately twisted into Iranian cultural sites by the liberals, the media and hand wringers with their panties in a twist?

That's about it.  There is a segment of society that will glom onto any and all opportunities to twist words to justify original opinions vis. Trump.

And it leads to interesting contradictions.  One can believe, simultaneously, "Trump is a liar!  Everything he says is a lie!  15,000 confirmed lies in three years!"  And then say, "Trump said he'll bomb Cultural Sites!  He's as good as bombed them already!  I believe him now!"

[Meldrew]

Strikes me that if you publicly exclude cultural sites (whatever those may be) you'll get a bunch of terrorists hiding in cultural sites.  Seems smarter to let it be known there's no place to hide. 

[libertybele]

I supported the strike killing Soleimani but it was what followed that was just bat crap crazy.  I am a Conservative and never against military strikes when necessary.  It is Trump who welcomes the left to question his actions.  He comes out threatening cultural sites.  Also saying that 52 stands for the 52 Iran hostages in Iran.  Makes a person wonder why he is bringing up the 1980 Iran Hostage situation?  Made me question whether this is imminent or just in general a I hate Iran for everything they have done from 1980 until now.

Instead of side tracking from imminent threats I would suggest that the President stick to the issue.  Also don't threaten cultural sites.  Those are World assets and its only fitting of terrorists to do those things.  We know they do because it is exactly what ISIS did.  We are not terrorists.  If the President wants to have full support he should stick to the truth and not act like he is insane.

Stick to the issue?  What issue would that be?? President Trump took out Iran's #2 person and saved American lives.  He should be applauded and further, no American lives were lost.  Him mentioning cultural sites and world assets was a warning.  No, we are NOT terrorists but he clearly let them know that he means business and isn't about to soften and cut a nuke deal with them or give them money as the past administration did.  He didn't start a war.  He didn't cost Americans their lives.  Good grief, what more do you want?

I applaud President Trump and think he was extremely Presidential and above all exuded leadership!  I am very proud of our President right now @Chosen Daughter   Very proud!

[EasyAce]

Seems smarter to let it be known there's no place to hide.

Which could have been made very clear without threatening to commit war crimes, of course.

[libertybele]

Which could have been made very clear without threatening to commit war crimes, of course.

War crimes?

..." Is targeting a site that is “at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture” necessarily a war crime?  No.  Indeed, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo did not contradict the President, but insisted that in the event it becomes necessary to use force against Iran, “[e]very target that we strike will be a lawful target, and it will be a target designed with a singular mission — defending and protecting America.”  Let’s unpack why it is possible that a target “at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture” might lawfully be struck. ....

..........There are a variety of treaties and agreements that speak to the protection of cultural sites in wartime, but the most important is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (CCP).  (The U.S. is a party to the CCP).

The ICRC fact sheet provides a good summary of the protections of the CCP provides, and an extract is below (emphasis added):

Protection: Parties to the Convention must safeguard their own cultural property against foreseeable effects of armed conflict (CCP, Art. 3)...."

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/01/06/would-attacking-sites-important-to-iranian-culture-be-a-war-crime-not-always/

[Smokin Joe]

Strikes me that if you publicly exclude cultural sites (whatever those may be) you'll get a bunch of terrorists hiding in cultural sites.  Seems smarter to let it be known there's no place to hide.

Bingo! (Might save a few cultural sites if an attack becomes necessary, too.)

[Smokin Joe]

Stick to the issue?  What issue would that be?? President Trump took out Iran's #2 person and saved American lives.  He should be applauded and further, no American lives were lost.  Him mentioning cultural sites and world assets was a warning.  No, we are NOT terrorists but he clearly let them know that he means business and isn't about to soften and cut a nuke deal with them or give them money as the past administration did.  He didn't start a war.  He didn't cost Americans their lives.  Good grief, what more do you want?

I applaud President Trump and think he was extremely Presidential and above all exuded leadership!  I am very proud of our President right now @Chosen Daughter   Very proud!

Little was spared the last time we fought a war with the express intent of winning (WWII), from entire Japanese cities, to Gothic Cathedrals, to Monte Casino. I think Trump was indicating that he would pursue victory with equal vigor, something not done in a few decades.

[EasyAce]

War crimes?

..." Is targeting a site that is “at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture” necessarily a war crime?  No.  Indeed, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo did not contradict the President, but insisted that in the event it becomes necessary to use force against Iran, “[e]very target that we strike will be a lawful target, and it will be a target designed with a singular mission — defending and protecting America.”  Let’s unpack why it is possible that a target “at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture” might lawfully be struck. ....

..........There are a variety of treaties and agreements that speak to the protection of cultural sites in wartime, but the most important is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (CCP).  (The U.S. is a party to the CCP).

The ICRC fact sheet provides a good summary of the protections of the CCP provides, and an extract is below (emphasis added):

Protection: Parties to the Convention must safeguard their own cultural property against foreseeable effects of armed conflict (CCP, Art. 3)...."

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/01/06/would-attacking-sites-important-to-iranian-culture-be-a-war-crime-not-always/

Illegal. Barbaric. And Foolish.

Now, taking out their key military installations? I'd be all in on that.

[240B]

Strikes me that if you publicly exclude cultural sites (whatever those may be) you'll get a bunch of terrorists hiding in cultural sites.  Seems smarter to let it be known there's no place to hide.

Fighting with Israelis and other Western Nations, Muslims quickly learned that they could openly use Mosques and other 'cultural sites' as headquarters, staging, and launching sites. Essentially they would turn Religious sites, schools, and Hospitals, into functioning military bases. Because they know that Western Civilized people do not like to attack these sites.

Ironically, the Muslims themselves do not care one single little bit about stuff like that. When they are killing each other (which is pretty much all the time), they will turn a Mosque, Apartments, or Hospital, into rubble in only a few minutes. With no regard to how many non combatants and children they massacre, or whatever the 'cultural significance' of the site is. They simply do not care. Muslims fight war like animals, not like honorable, civilized, human beings.

[libertybele]

Illegal. Barbaric. And Foolish.

Now, taking out their key military installations? I'd be all in on that.

According to the article and to Pompeo himself -- certain instances would allow Trump to do so.  He has since taken a back seat on that idea....yet people continue to grind on that issue.

The President succeeded in what he set out to do.  Right now, no American casualties.  Iran has been knocked into place.  He deserves a huge pat on the back.  He didn't send troops in to accomplish his goals -- so still trying to figure out why people are still up in arms.  He did very well and people are still knocking him.

[austingirl]

That's about it.  There is a segment of society that will glom onto any and all opportunities to twist words to justify original opinions vis. Trump.

And it leads to interesting contradictions.  One can believe, simultaneously, "Trump is a liar!  Everything he says is a lie!  15,000 confirmed lies in three years!"  And then say, "Trump said he'll bomb Cultural Sites!  He's as good as bombed them already!  I believe him now!"

And those don't even recognized how illogical they are!

[roamer_1]

The President succeeded in what he set out to do.  Right now, no American casualties.  Iran has been knocked into place.  He deserves a huge pat on the back.  He didn't send troops in to accomplish his goals -- so still trying to figure out why people are still up in arms.  He did very well and people are still knocking him.

It's rather early in the game for such a definitive position... in any direction.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's rather early in the game for such a definitive position... in any direction.

Correct. It's also too early to complain about "cultural sites" being destroyed. It hasn't come to pass.

[bilo]

Little was spared the last time we fought a war with the express intent of winning (WWII), from entire Japanese cities, to Gothic Cathedrals, to Monte Casino. I think Trump was indicating that he would pursue victory with equal vigor, something not done in a few decades.

Thank you!

Trying to make war antiseptic is lunacy. By creating the idea that war can be waged and only bad guys get killed leads people to believe war is acceptable. War should be recognized for what it is; brutal, deadly and innocents are killed. If we recognize war for what it is we might not have to fight as many and those that we do have to fight we can win with fewer of our guys getting killed or injured. 

[libertybele]

It's rather early in the game for such a definitive position... in any direction.

All I am trying to convey is he is being criticized for the "what ifs".  He silenced Iran's #2 in command and protected and saved American lives.  That he set out to do and accomplished -- he did so without American casualties. It has been reported that he has deployed more military and warships.  The "what ifs" are unknown and the DEMS (and some in here) are jumping down his throat accusing him of trying to start a war, acting without authority and making threats that are unlawful though he hasn't taken any further action.  He has put Iran on notice.  I commend him.

[Axeslinger]

Illegal. Barbaric. And Foolish.

Now, taking out their key military installations? I'd be all in on that.

@EasyAce
And when they stage their military hardware in their “cultural sites”....like they always do?

Personally, I don’t give a shit.  Turn Mecca (yes I know it’s not in Iraq) into a radioactive waste area that is incompatible with life for a 1000 years.  Islam is a pox on humanity.   The sooner it is eradicated, the better.