OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[GGG Gloveking]

It's just a simple question.


Would the 176 people still be alive today if not for Trump assassinating Soleimani, in an act that many believe was unconstitutional at that?

I mean we all know the answer. It's not my fault if you guys don't like the answer.

No. The only person dead as a result of Trump assassinating Soleimani is Soleimani. Those passengers of that flight are dead as a result of human error. Human error made by an Iranian defense personnel.

In sorry that someone with their finger on the button doesn't know the difference between: 1. an incoming flight vs a departing flight, and 2. the difference between a 757 and a B-52. But in the end, that isn't Trump's responsibility.

[travestyny]

No. The only person dead as a result of Trump assassinating Soleimani is Soleimani. Those passengers of that flight are dead as a result of human error. Human error made by an Iranian defense personnel.

In sorry that someone with their finger on the button doesn't know the difference between: 1. an incoming flight vs a departing flight, and 2. the difference between a 757 and a B-52. But in the end, that isn't Trump's responsibility.

That's not the question, Glove.

The question is would they have been killed if Trump didn't assassinate Soleimani?

How likely do you think they would have been killed without that happening, hmmm?


We all understand about collateral damage. The reason I make a point of mentioning his unconstitutional action is because it's one thing for there to be collateral damage, but another thing to have collateral damage from a President behaving like a dictator, which is precisely why even in such polarizing times, there are even Republicans who are against him on this issue. Even that Gaetz dude, surprisingly.

[GGG Gloveking]

That's not the question, Glove.

The question is would they have been killed if Trump didn't assassinate Soleimani?

How likely do you think they would have been killed without that happening, hmmm?


We all understand about collateral damage. The reason I make a point of mentioning his unconstitutional action is because it's one thing for there to be collateral damage, but another thing to have collateral damage from a President behaving like a dictator, which is precisely why even in such polarizing times, there are even Republicans who are against him on this issue. Even that Gaetz dude, surprisingly.

They died as a result of the Iranian defense personnel firing a missile. If it was human error, than there is certainly not an attachment of causation to Trump. There is no guarantee that this human error would have, or would not have occurred otherwise. But those people are dead because an Iranian mistook a commercial jet airliner for a military aircraft. Those people are dead because someone in a crucial situation did not handle that situation properly. They may be dead because the Iranian military did not properly train this individual. They may be dead because Iran does not have the proper technology to identify a commercial jet airliner for military aircraft. But at the end of the day, those passengers are dead because an Iranian identified an outgoing commercial airliner (one that had just departed from Tehran of all places), for an incoming military aircraft.

You can't blame Trump for some Iranian having shaky nerves and an itchy trigger finger.

[travestyny]

They died as a result of the Iranian defense personnel firing a missile.

You are again ducking. That's not what I asked.


How likely do you believe it to be that they would have died had not Trump taken this action.

It's not a hard question, but you're doing a whole lot of ducking and squirming.

[GGG Gloveking]

You are again ducking. That's not what I asked.


How likely do you believe it to be that they would have died had not Trump taken this action.

It's not a hard question, but you're doing a whole lot of ducking and squirming.

Squirming? Nobody's squirming. I'll answer your question, then you answer mine. Ok?

Yes, in my opinion, they would more likely than not still be alive had Trump not ordered the drone strike against the Iranian terrorist. Of course, that is speculative, and only speaks to conjecture and probability. I'd rather deal in facts.

My turn. Can we or can we not say for an absolute fact that those passengers would be alive today if the Iranian defense personnel had not fired that missile? Should be an easy question.

[travestyny]

Squirming? Nobody's squirming. I'll answer your question, then you answer mine. Ok?

Yes, in my opinion, they would more likely than not still be alive had Trump not ordered the drone strike against the Iranian terrorist. Of course, that is speculative, and only speaks to conjecture and probability. I'd rather deal in facts.

My turn. Can we or can we not say for an absolute fact that those passengers would be alive today if the Iranian defense personnel had not fired that missile? Should be an easy question.

Great. You want to deal in facts. Let's deal in facts.

No, we can't say it's an absolute fact that they would be alive today, but what's great is we can give a percentage of their survival.

"The odds of perishing due to an accident on a single commercial flight is placed at one in 29.4 million."

ONE IN 29.4 MILLION CHANCE.

My turn.

Did Trump's actions raise the percentage chance exponentially higher? Try getting around that one.

[GGG Gloveking]

Great. You want to deal in facts. Let's deal in facts.

No, we can't say it's an absolute fact that they would be alive today, but what's great is we can give a percentage of their survival.

"The odds of perishing due to an accident on a single commercial flight is placed at one in 29.4 million."

ONE IN 29.4 MILLION CHANCE.

My turn.

Did Trump's actions raise the percentage chance exponentially higher? Try getting around that one.

So, just for clarity, you're saying it's not an absolute certainty that those passengers would still be alive today, just a 29,399,999 out of 29,400,000 probability (99.999996598%) that they would still be alive.

Now, I can't answer your question, because unfortunately I don't have a way of ascertaining the likelihood of human error due to an alternate event. I can guess, and speculate that Trump's actions may have had an influence on the mistaken action of the Iranian personnel. If I were to venture a guess, I would say it would be significantly lower than the 99.999996598% chance that it increased due to the actions of the Iranian.

Now, can we or can we not say with absolute certainty that the cause of death of those passengers was being hit by an Iranian rocket?

[travestyny]

So, just for clarity, you're saying it's not an absolute certainty that those passengers would still be alive today, just a 29,399,999 out of 29,400,000 probability (99.999996598%) that they would still be alive.

Now, I can't answer your question, because unfortunately I don't have a way of ascertaining the likelihood of human error due to an alternate event. I can guess, and speculate that Trump's actions may have had an influence on the mistaken action of the Iranian personnel. If I were to venture a guess, I would say it would be significantly lower than the 99.999996598% chance that it increased due to the actions of the Iranian.

Now, can we or can we not say with absolute certainty that the cause of death of those passengers was being hit by an Iranian rocket?

Oh sure, you can answer my question.

You can say whether they are more likely to be alive or less likely to be alive based on Trump's actions.

But feel free to keep acting like it's rocket science. You and I both know you're not that dumb. Or are you?


Why were the rockets in the sky, Glove? Don't you know? Don't start trying to duck my question now. That's not fair, now is it?

[GGG Gloveking]

Oh sure, you can answer my question.

You can say whether they are more likely to be alive or less likely to be alive based on Trump's actions.

But feel free to keep acting like it's rocket science. You and I both know you're not that dumb. Or are you?


Why were the rockets in the sky, Glove? Don't you know?

The rockets were in the sky because they were fired by an Iranian. It's not rocket science, it's that simple. You're the one trying to make it harder than it has to be.

[travestyny]

The rockets were in the sky because they were fired by an Iranian. It's not rocket science, it's that simple. You're the one trying to make it harder than it has to be.

lol. Cute.


Why were the rockets in the sky, Glove. You going to keep playing dumb, I see. Does this pandering and playing dumb make you feel good?

I mean, I can give you a homework assignment if you want. Go look up the articles on what happened, and tell me how many times you see the word retaliation. That should put you on the right path, I hope.


Iran had carefully orchestrated its retaliatory response for maximum symbolism and emotional impact:

What Will Iran Do Next After Retaliatory Missile Strike?

Iran Strikes U.S. Troops in Iraq in Retaliation Over Soleimani's Death.

Iran retaliated. Now may come the covert proxy revenge

Iran retaliated for Soleimani's killing. It doesn't mean it ends...

Iran retaliates for Gen. Soleimani's killing by firing missiles at ...

etc., etc,. etc....